Plaintiff Juwanna Roland sued defendants Donnelly College and Russell Robinson in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, asserting claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law for tortious interference with a contract. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except plaintiff’s § 1983 claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Factual Overview

Plaintiff was a nursing student at Donnelly College from the fall of 2021 until March 2023 when she withdrew from the program. She alleged that Professor Robinson, one of her instructors, engaged in sexual harassment against her, including unwanted physical touching during a class held at a Waffle House restaurant, making inappropriate sexual comments, and propositioning her. Plaintiff claimed that after she refused Robinson’s advances, he punished her by altering her grades, which led to her being placed on academic probation and ultimately forced her to withdraw from the program.

Plaintiff alleged that she attempted to report Robinson’s behavior to the Director of Nursing, who repeatedly refused to meet with her. She claimed Robinson failed her on an exam after whispering to her, “You gonna wish you gave me some of that pussy.” Plaintiff also alleged that Robinson had made comments about her anxiety in front of the class, and that she had previously informed another professor about her testing anxiety.

Legal Analysis

Title IX Sex Discrimination Claim:

The College argued that plaintiff failed to state a sex discrimination claim because she did not identify any male students who received more favorable treatment. The court rejected this argument, noting that the Tenth Circuit does not require plaintiffs to pursue a “selective enforcement” theory of liability under Title IX. Instead, the court simply asks whether the facts alleged raise a plausible inference that the College discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex. The court found that plaintiff’s allegations that Robinson altered her grades based on her refusal of his sexual advances plausibly suggested sex-based discrimination.

Title IX Retaliation Claim:

The College argued that plaintiff failed to allege she engaged in protected activity or that any College official had knowledge of such activity. The court agreed, finding that plaintiff’s complaint was “devoid of any allegations that anyone in the decision-making process” knew about any protected activity. The court held that plaintiff’s attempts to report discrimination did not constitute protected activity, as “plaintiff’s argument ‘conflates an attempt at opposition with actual opposition.’”

Title IX Sexual Harassment Claim:

The College moved to dismiss this claim on grounds that it lacked actual knowledge of Robinson’s harassment. The court agreed, finding plaintiff had not alleged that an appropriate person actually received a report of Robinson’s sexual harassment. Plaintiff’s attempts to report the harassment were insufficient to satisfy the “actual knowledge” requirement.

Rehabilitation Act Claims:

The College challenged plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim, arguing she had not plausibly pleaded that she was prevented from passing the program “solely” because of her disability. The court agreed, noting that plaintiff’s own allegations attributed her academic troubles to retaliation for rejecting Robinson’s advances, not to her anxiety. Similarly, the court dismissed plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim because merely informing a professor about experiencing testing anxiety, without requesting accommodation, was insufficient.

Tortious Interference with Contract

Robinson argued for dismissal because plaintiff had not alleged an enforceable contract, had not alleged he acted with malice, and as an agent of the College, he could not interfere with the College’s contracts. The court rejected these arguments, finding that plaintiff had plausibly described a contractual relationship between herself and the College, had alleged Robinson acted without justification, and had alleged Robinson was not acting within the scope of his employment when altering her grades in retaliation for her rejecting his advances.

The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title IX, granted dismissal of all Rehabilitation Act claims, and denied the motion with respect to plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim under Title IX and her tortious interference with contract claim against Robinson.