Doe v. University of Illinois
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCoffey, Circuit Judge
I concur in the majority’s conclusion but not in its reasoning; I dissent from the majority’s standard of liability. Title IX does impose liability upon fund recipients for failing to take prompt, appropriate remedial action in response to complaints of student-*669on-student sexual harassment, provided that responsible officials had actual knowledge of such harassment. But only those remedial actions which clearly evidence intentional discrimination are actionable under Title IX. See Smith v. Metropolitan Sch. Dist., 128 F.3d 1014, 1028 (7th Cir.1997). Doe’s facts as pleaded are sufficient to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Bellotti v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Shango v. JurichCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Jamie S. Nabozny v. Mary Podlesny, William Davis, Thomas BlauertCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.