Rossley v. Drake University, No. 19-1392 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After plaintiff was removed from the Board of Trustees of Drake University, he filed suit alleging Title IX retaliation, disability retaliation, and breach of contract. Plaintiff's removal stemmed from conflicts of interests following the University's findings that plaintiff's son was responsible for alleged sexual misconduct and expelled from the University.
The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff's removal from the Board cannot support a Title IX retaliation claim against the University. In this case, the Board was acting in a manner separate and distinct from the University itself and thus plaintiff cannot hold the University liable under Title IX for the separate decision of the Board regarding its own internal affairs. The court also held that plaintiff's claim that the University retaliated against him by prohibiting him from serving as his son's advocate during the campus hearings failed, where, at no time did the son request that his father serve as his personal representative under the Code of Conduct and that such request was denied. Furthermore, without a nexus, plaintiff's claim of Title IX retaliation by the University failed. The court held that none of the actions plaintiff alleges the University took against him in retaliation were part of an education program or activity, and therefore he lacks standing to bring suit under 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). The court declined to expand Title IX's reach.
The court held that plaintiff's disability retaliation claim failed because the Board voted to remove plaintiff due to his pervasive conflict of interest with the University and only after plaintiff refused to take a leave of absence from the Board. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's contract claim failed because plaintiff served on the Board as an unpaid, uncompensated volunteer.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Title IX. Plaintiff was removed from Drake's Board of Trustees for a conflict of interest after he took actions advocating his son's position in a pending Title IX matter; as a matter of law plaintiff cannot hold the University liable under Title IX for the Board of Trustees' decision to remove him from the Board; Plaintiff cannot state a claim that the University retaliated against him by prohibiting from serving as his son's advocate during campus hearings as the complaint fails to allege that the son asked him to serve as the son's personal representative under the Code of Conduct and that such a request was denied by the University; even if plaintiff was prevented from attending his son's Title IX hearing, the complaint fails to allege facts showing a nexus between his inability to attend the hearing and his alleged complaints to the Board; none of the actions plaintiff alleges the University took against him in retaliation for his activities were part of an education program or activity and he lacks standing to bring suit under 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a); with respect to plaintiff's disability retaliation claim, plaintiff failed to show the reasons the University and Board gave for its actions were pretexts for disability discrimination; viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, he served on the Board as an unpaid, uncompensated volunteer and his claim that his termination violated an alleged contract must fail for lack of consideration.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.