## Facts

- Student members of a campus feminist organization spoke publicly against authorizing male-only fraternities and criticized campus sexual-violence risks associated with Greek life.
- After a campus town hall and controversy involving a men’s rugby team chant described as glorifying violence against women, the students and their organization became targets of anonymous, sex-based threats on Yik Yak, a geolocation-based social media app widely used on campus.
- The posts allegedly included hundreds of sexually explicit and violent threats, including threats of rape and murder, directed at individual students and the organization.
- The students repeatedly reported the threats to university administrators and presented a large collection of examples to the university president, requesting steps such as blocking access to Yik Yak on the university network and taking measures to identify and discipline those responsible.
- The university suspended rugby activities and required training, but allegedly did not block Yik Yak on its network, did not attempt to identify the posters, and responded with limited measures (e.g., listening sessions, a general email, and a police officer meeting with one student).
- Plaintiffs alleged the harassment interfered with their educational access and campus participation.
- Plaintiffs sued the university under Title IX for sex discrimination (deliberate indifference to student-on-student sexual harassment) and retaliation, and sued the university president under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an Equal Protection Clause violation; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged Title IX sex discrimination based on the university’s deliberate indifference to known, severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive student-on-student harassment occurring through an anonymous social media app used on campus.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged Title IX retaliation based on the university’s response to post-complaint peer harassment and/or based solely on a public letter by the university president criticizing the plaintiffs’ position.
3. Whether the university president was entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 Equal Protection claim predicated on deliberate indifference to student-on-student sexual harassment.

## Decision

- Vacated dismissal of the Title IX sex discrimination claim and remanded, holding the complaint plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive sex-based peer harassment with sufficient institutional control.
- Vacated in part the dismissal of the Title IX retaliation claim to the extent premised on deliberate indifference to retaliatory peer harassment following protected activity.
- Affirmed dismissal of the Title IX retaliation theory based solely on the president’s public letter, holding it was not, by itself, a sufficiently adverse action.
- Affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 equal protection claim against the president on qualified-immunity grounds because the asserted right was not clearly established at the time.

## Legal Principles

- A Title IX funding recipient may be liable for student-on-student sexual harassment when it has actual knowledge and responds with deliberate indifference to harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies equal access to educational opportunities.
- “Substantial control” under Title IX can be satisfied where a university plausibly controls the harassers and the context of harassment, including harassment transmitted through platforms used on campus and through the institution’s network, if the institution can take meaningful steps to limit or address the misuse.
- At the pleading stage, allegations of repeated reports to administrators can establish actual notice, and allegations of minimal or ineffectual measures can plausibly support deliberate indifference if the response could be found clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances.
- Title IX prohibits retaliation against individuals for complaining about sex discrimination; a plausible retaliation claim may be based on an institution’s deliberate indifference to peer harassment motivated by the plaintiff’s protected complaints.
- Under qualified immunity, individual-capacity damages liability under § 1983 requires a clearly established constitutional right; absent controlling precedent or a robust consensus recognizing an equal-protection right to be free from an administrator’s deliberate indifference to peer sexual harassment in this context, the official is immune.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that allegations of extensive, violent, sex-based threats on an anonymous social media app tied to campus use and the university network could support Title IX liability for deliberate indifference and retaliation, but it protected the university president from § 1983 damages because the relevant Equal Protection right was not clearly established.


Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2018)