Jane Doe v. Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges, No. 22-1814 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
The Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges (“NSCS”) appealed from a jury verdict finding it acted with deliberate indifference after Jane Doe (“Doe”) was sexually assaulted while attending Chadron State College (“Chadron”). On appeal, NSCS raised three claims: (1) the Title IX claim fails as a matter of law; (2) the district court erred when it admitted the expert testimony of Dr. Charol Shakeshaft; and (3) the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees. We begin with NSCS’s paramount claim that, as a matter of law, it was not deliberately indifferent after Doe reported being sexually assaulted.
The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded with directions that the district court enter judgment in favor of NSCS and vacated the award of Doe’s attorney fees. The court explained that viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that Chadron acted promptly—nearly immediately—upon learning of the assault. Chadron issued a mutually binding no-contact order between Doe and the accused, which was served on the accused at the end of his police interview. Chadron verified that the two students did not share the same classes and promptly initiated an investigation to determine what happened. Chadron interviewed Doe, explained the investigatory process to her, banned the accused from Andrews Hall, and accommodated Doe academically. Further, the court held that Doe cannot show a causal nexus between Chadron’s actions and the sexual assaults or harassment.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Title IX. With respect to plaintiff's Title IX deliberate indifference claim, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that the school acted promptly upon learning of the assault on plaintiff; the steps it took were prompt, extensive, substantive, directed to protect and assist plaintiff, and not clearly unreasonable given the circumstances known to the school; even if the evidence was somehow sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference, the evidence fell short of establishing a causal nexus between the school's actions and the sexual assault or harassment; the judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed with directions to enter judgment in favor of the school and to vacate the award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff. Judge Kelly, dissenting.
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.