## Facts

- Tiffany Williams was a student at the University of Georgia (UGA).
- Williams alleged that UGA basketball player Tony Cole invited her to his dorm room in McWhorter Hall, a dormitory used by student-athletes, and that she and Cole had consensual sex.
- Williams alleged that, without her knowledge, UGA football player Brandon Williams was hiding in Cole’s closet as part of a plan between Cole and Brandon; Brandon emerged naked and sexually assaulted her and attempted to rape her.
- Williams alleged that Cole contacted other athletes and described the attack as “running a train” on her; UGA basketball player Steven Thomas came to the room, was allowed in, and—encouraged by Cole—sexually assaulted and raped her.
- Williams reported the incident to UGA police and later withdrew from UGA.
- The three athletes were charged with disorderly conduct under UGA’s student conduct code; about a year later, a UGA disciplinary panel held a hearing and imposed no sanctions.
- Cole had prior disciplinary and criminal incidents before the assault; before transferring to UGA, he had been dismissed from two other colleges after allegations that he sexually assaulted or harassed women and had been involved in other violent incidents.
- Williams alleged that UGA’s head basketball coach (Jim Harrick), the director of the University of Georgia Athletic Association (UGAA) (Vince Dooley), and UGA/UGAA’s president (Michael Adams) knew of Cole’s prior history when recruiting him.
- Williams also alleged that UGA officials had received suggestions from other student-athletes that coaches needed to inform athletes about UGA’s sexual-harassment policy.
- Williams sued the Board of Regents, UGA, UGAA, and officials, asserting Title IX and other claims; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), and Williams appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Williams plausibly stated a Title IX claim against UGA (and related entities) based on the university’s response to her report of the assault, including whether any alleged deliberate indifference “subjected” her to further harassment or made her vulnerable to it.
2. Whether Williams plausibly stated a Title IX claim on a pre-assault theory that recruiting/admitting Cole with known prior misconduct, along with alleged shortcomings in sexual-harassment policy communication, amounted to actual notice and deliberate indifference that caused the assault.
3. Whether Williams could maintain Title IX or § 1983 claims against UGAA and individual university/athletics officials based on the alleged conduct and institutional failures.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held Williams did not plead Title IX facts satisfying the Supreme Court’s actual-notice and deliberate-indifference requirements for damages in cases of student-on-student harassment.
- On the post-assault theory, the court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference that caused Williams to suffer additional actionable harassment (or vulnerability to it) after UGA learned of the assault.
- On the pre-assault theory, the court concluded that allegations about Cole’s prior misconduct at other schools and generalized warnings about policy communication did not amount to the kind of actual notice to an “appropriate person” required for Title IX damages liability for this assault, and the pleaded causal link was insufficient under the governing standard.
- The court affirmed dismissal of claims against individual defendants under Title IX (which authorizes damages actions against funding recipients, not individuals) and affirmed dismissal of the asserted § 1983 theories for inadequate pleading of an actionable constitutional violation and required involvement/causation.
- The court noted that its earlier 2006 published opinion was vacated on rehearing; the 2007 opinion is the controlling decision.

## Legal Principles

- Title IX damages liability for student-on-student harassment is limited by the Gebser/Davis framework: a funding recipient is liable only when an official with authority to take corrective action has actual knowledge of sexual harassment and responds with deliberate indifference (a response that is clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances).
- For peer harassment, a plaintiff must also plead that the deliberate indifference caused the plaintiff to undergo harassment or made the plaintiff vulnerable to it; allegations focused only on dissatisfaction with discipline, without resulting further harassment tied to the school’s response, do not satisfy this causation requirement.
- Actual notice requires more than a general risk of misconduct; knowledge of a student’s prior bad acts at other institutions and general concerns about policy communication, without pleaded notice of actionable harassment (or a sufficiently specific known risk) in the school’s own program, is not enough for Title IX damages.
- Title IX does not impose a negligence-style duty to screen, admit, or supervise students; the statute’s damages remedy targets the funding recipient’s own deliberate-indifference misconduct after actual notice.
- Title IX authorizes private damages actions against funding recipients (and, where applicable, entities treated as such), not against individual employees in their personal capacities.
- § 1983 liability requires pleading an underlying constitutional violation and a sufficient connection between each defendant’s conduct and the alleged deprivation; conclusory allegations of institutional failure are insufficient without the required elements.

## Conclusion

Williams v. Board of Regents held that, even where a student plausibly alleges a serious sexual assault by other students, Title IX damages require pleaded facts showing actual notice to an appropriate official and a clearly unreasonable response that caused the plaintiff to suffer (or be made vulnerable to) actionable harassment; allegations that the university recruited an athlete with a troubling past and later failed to discipline the assailants were insufficient on the complaint as pleaded, and the court affirmed dismissal of the Title IX and related § 1983 claims.


Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282 (2007)