## Facts

- Marty Gossett, a male student, completed his first semester at Langston University’s School of Nursing and enrolled for a second semester in fall 1994.
- He performed satisfactorily in most courses but struggled in a Process II course taught by nursing instructors.
- Gossett sought help and counseling from the instructors when he began having difficulty.
- Gossett presented evidence that male nursing students were treated less favorably than female students in access to assistance, encouragement, and remedial opportunities, and were singled out for criticism.
- Gossett failed Process II and was required to withdraw from the nursing program.
- Gossett alleged the academic decisions leading to his withdrawal were influenced by sex-based animus and that he was denied constitutionally sufficient process.
- Gossett sued under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection and substantive and procedural due process).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding Gossett’s evidence was insufficient to permit a jury finding on any claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Gossett produced sufficient evidence of intentional sex discrimination to defeat summary judgment on his Title IX and § 1983 equal-protection claims.
2. Whether disputed facts precluded summary judgment on Gossett’s substantive and procedural due process claims arising from his academic removal.
3. Whether the district court applied an improper summary-judgment approach by discounting the nonmovant’s evidence and effectively making credibility determinations.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that Gossett’s evidence, viewed with all reasonable inferences in his favor, created genuine disputes of material fact on intentional sex discrimination under Title IX and § 1983 equal protection.
- The court held that the record also presented triable fact disputes on Gossett’s due process theories.
- The court concluded the district court erred by discounting Gossett’s evidence and weighing competing accounts rather than asking whether a reasonable jury could find for Gossett.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where the record, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, permits a reasonable jury to find discriminatory intent or disparate treatment on a material issue; courts may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations.
- Title IX and § 1983 equal-protection claims alleging sex discrimination in an academic program require evidence from which a reasonable jury could find intentional discrimination, including disparate treatment compared with similarly situated students of the opposite sex.
- Academic decision-making does not insulate an institution from liability where evidence supports an inference that adverse academic action was influenced by impermissible sex-based motives.
- Substantive and procedural due process claims tied to academic removal may survive summary judgment where disputed facts support an inference that the decision was arbitrary or improperly motivated and that the student may not have received constitutionally adequate process.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that Gossett’s evidence of differential treatment of male students and possible sex-based motivation, together with disputed facts surrounding his academic withdrawal, required resolution by a factfinder and therefore precluded summary judgment on his Title IX, equal-protection, and due process claims.


Gossett v. Oklahoma ex rel. Bd. of Regents for Langston Univ., 245 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2001)