udge Rachel Bloomekatz, who was nominated by President Biden to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, wrote a 2-1 decision that reversed a lower court and ruled that a student who was raped at the University of Kentucky should have the opportunity to prover her claim that the University retaliated against her for filing a Title IX discrimination complaint against it. Judge Richard Griffin, who was nominated by President George W Bush, joined the opinion, while conservative Judge Alice Batchelder, who was nominated by George H.W. Bush, dissented. The August 2024 decision was in Doe v University of Kentucky.
What happened in this case?
Jane Doe, a student at the University of Kentucky, reported that another student (JD) forcibly raped her in her dorm room. The University held three student conduct hearings and found JD guilty and expelled him each time, but the internal appeals board reversed the decision on procedural grounds all three times. Doe then filed a federal complaint against the University under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.
Nearly two and one-half years after Doe first reported the rape, and after she filed the Title IX lawsuit, the university held a fourth hearing and, this time, found against Doe. She amended her Title IX complaint to contend that the university “mishandled” the fourth hearing “in retaliation for” bringing her Title IX lawsuit. The university filed a motion for summary judgment against Doe in the Title IX case, which the district court granted. Doe appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
How did Judge Bloomekatz and the Sixth Circuit Rule and Why is it Important?
Judge Bloomekatz carefully analyzed the record, the statute, and relevant case law, and found a number of errors by the district court warranting reversal. Initially, she explained, the lower court confined its analysis to the “specific allegations” in the complaint and refused to consider the “full scope of record evidence” Doe presented in opposition to summary judgment, including “additional examples” of “retaliatory actions.” As Judge Bloomekatz explained, precedent clearly establishes that a court should consider all evidence, including materials not contained in the complaint, in evaluating the motion. Failure to do so, she concluded, was “categorical error.”
In addition, Bloomekatz wrote, the lower court mistakenly ruled that Doe could not proceed with her claim because she was no longer a student at the university at the time of the fourth hearing and related retaliation. She explained that this argument “defies the statute’s text” and relevant case law. According to the university, Bloomekatz pointed out, a “sexual assault victim who drops out of school” due to trauma “would have no recourse” at all.
She went on to catalog a number of material disputed facts that should have precluded summary judgment. These included whether the University improperly delayed the fourth hearing “for over a year,” failed to “adequately prosecute” the fourth hearing, including the effect of allowing Doe to be questioned about her filing of her Title IX complaint, and the decisions by the hearing panel and appeals board.
Bloomekatz also rejected other arguments by the University, such as its claim that Title IX does not allow a lawsuit for retaliation. She concluded by reversing the summary judgment decision against Doe and sending the case back to the lower ocurt so she could pursue her claims.
Judge Bloomekatz’s decision was obviously important to Jane Doe and her effort to get justice against the University. It also sets important precedent concerning the handling of Title IX cases, particularly concerning retaliation, especially in the Sixth Circuit, which incudes Kentucky, Michgan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The decision also serves as an important reminder of the value of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.