Simpson v.

University of Colorado Boulder

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
500 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007)

Key Search Term: Title IX, sexual assault, football, deliberate indifference,
recruiting

Facts
Two female students at the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU), Lisa
Simpson and Anne Gilmore, claim that they were sexually assaulted in
December 2001, by football players and recruits of CU. Both victims brought
an action against CU, a federally funded institution, under Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972. The Plaintiffs are appealing district court’s
granting of summary judgment in favor of CU.

Issue
Was there sufficient evidence to show that CU violated Title IX when CU failed
to respond to previous incidents of sexual assault by football players and
recruits as well as the football team’s unwritten policy of showing recruits a
“good time” by taking them to parties and promising sex with female students?

Holding
The Court applied the Supreme Court’s holding in Canton (City of Canton v.
Harris, 489 U.S. 378) that deliberate-indifference claims could be established
by a failure to train for certain obvious risks. The Court examined evidence of
numerous allegations of sexual assault and harassment against football
players and recruits over the past 30 years of the program. There was also
evidence that, despite efforts by athletics department to raise awareness and
enforcement, CU football coaches failed to meaningfully address and enforce
recruiting guidelines or sexual harassment and misconduct. Thus, the 10th
Circuit held that the evidence presented was sufficient to supporting findings
that (1) CU had an official policy of showing high-school football recruits a
“good time” on their visits to the CU campus, (2) that the alleged sexual
assaults were caused by CU’s failure to provide adequate supervision and
guidance to player-hosts chosen to show the football recruits “a good time,”
and (3) that the likelihood of such misconduct was so obvious that CU’s failure
was the result of deliberate indifference. Thus, CU was not entitled to
summary judgment and the district court’s ruling was reversed and the case
was remanded for further proceedings.

Summarized by: Lucy Wess