Du Bois v. The Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, No. 20-1544 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota alleging retaliation and sex discrimination under Title IX. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the University violated Title IX by (1) retaliating against her for supporting a former coach in a sexual harassment investigation by not allowing her to redshirt; and (2) discriminating against her on the basis of sex.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the University's motion to dismiss because plaintiff did not have an actionable claim for retaliation under Title IX and she failed to show that she was treated differently because of her sex. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege that she engaged in a protected activity, and no part of Title IX designates participation in a sexual harassment investigation on the side of the accused as protected activity. In regard to plaintiff's claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex when she was denied the right to redshirt, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a claim of sex discrimination in violation of Title IX.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Gruender and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Title IX. Plaintiff claimed she suffered retaliation because of her support of a coach being investigated for sexual harassment and was discriminated against on the basis of her gender; plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity and failed to make a prima facie case of Title IX retaliation; no part of Title IX designates participation in a sexual harassment investigation on the side of the accused as protected activity; with respect to her claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex when she was denied the right to "redshirt," plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a claim of sex discrimination in violation of Title IX.
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.