Simpson v. University of Colorado
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/US-CourtOfAppeals-10thCircuit-Seal.png/220px-US-CourtOfAppeals-10thCircuit-Seal.png)
Lisa Simpson; Anne Gilmore v. University of Colorado Boulder, Nos. 06-1184 and 07-1182 (Sept. 6, 2007)[1] was a case in which the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was enough evidence that the University of Colorado Boulder was deliberately indifferent [2] under Title IX of not taking appropriate measures to limit sexual assault on their campus despite officials, such as Gary Barnett, having a general knowledge of the harassment and the risk of sexual assault occurring.[3]
Background
[edit]The case involved a female student, Lisa Simpson, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by a male student, in 2001 while they were both attending the University of Colorado Boulder.[4] Simpson reported the assault to the university, which investigated and found the man responsible for sexual misconduct. However, the university did not take any disciplinary action against him and allowed him to continue attending classes with Simpson. Simpson eventually sued the university, alleging that it had violated her rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.[5]
After the case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn[6] an appeal sent the case to trial in 2004, and the jury found the university liable for failing to adequately respond to Simpson's allegations of sexual assault. The jury awarded Simpson $2.5 million in damages, including $1 million in punitive damages.[7] The case raised important questions about the responsibilities of universities in preventing and responding to sexual assault on campus, especially universities that receive federal funding as the impact of this case made the influence of Title IX bigger than what most schools expected.[8] It highlighted the need for universities to take a proactive approach to addressing sexual assault, including educating students about consent, providing support to victims, and holding perpetrators accountable.[9]
Opinion of The Court
[edit]The district court made the decision based on the evidence in this case that at the time of the assaults on the plaintiffs: "(1) Coach Barnett, whose rank in the CU hierarchy was comparable to that of a police chief in a municipal government, had general knowledge of the serious risk of sexual harassment and assault during college-football recruiting efforts; (2) Barnett knew that such assaults had indeed occurred during CU recruiting visits; (3) Barnett nevertheless maintained an unsupervised player-host program to show high-school recruits "a good time"; and (4) Barnett knew, both because of incidents reported to him and because of his own unsupportive attitude, that there had been no change in atmosphere since 1997 (when the prior assault occurred) that would make such misconduct less likely in 2001".[10] With these findings the court also found that a jury would find that the need for new training was so obvious that Barnett could be found deliberately indifferent of the need to do so.
Deliberate Indifference
[edit]Deliberate indifference is a legal term that describes an official knowing about a potential source of harm occurring and taking no action to help a person they are responsible for from that harm.[11] Deliberate Indifference was initially defined in a United States Supreme Court Case Estelle v Gamble. In Estelle v Gamble deliberate indifference was used in a prison to prisoner relationship as a prisoner did not receive medical attention that was needed, and the prison was deliberately indifferent to his needs.[12] Another case that is relevant to the topic of deliberate indifference is another Supreme Court case Farmer v Brennan. Farmer v Brennan was another prison-based case in which a trans woman was placed in an all-male prison and was subsequently raped. The court ruled that the prison was deliberately indifferent to this fact and the case was seen as influential because it was the first time the Supreme Court had addressed sexual assault in prison.[13]
Impact
[edit]With the decision by the court of appeals a grand jury investigation was prompted and as a result an indictment was made with a former recruiting aid being sentenced to probation after pleading guilty, also the University of Colorado's athletic department faced an overhaul as the resignations of both the athletic director and CU system president quickly followed the indictment.[14] The settlement that was reached with Simpson also provided a new advisor independent of the university to monitor Title IX compliance and an additional part-time counselor who will work in CU's Office of Victim's Assistance.[15] The Tenth Circuit sent a message through this case to universities that female students can be harmed when a university is deliberately indifferent and that a university and its officials can be held accountable.[9]
References
[edit]- ^ Clayton, Robert L.; Guyan, Alyson J. (April 28, 2008). "Tenth Circuit Finds that the University of Colorado Boulder's Failure to Prevent Alleged Sexual Assaults May Be the Result of Deliberate Indifference". Littler Mendelson P.C. Retrieved March 23, 2023.
- ^ "Deliberate Indifference in Title IX Lawsuits". Parisi, Coan & Saccocio, PLLC. Retrieved March 23, 2023.
- ^ "FindLaw's United States Tenth Circuit case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved March 23, 2023.
- ^ Erik Brady, Colorado Scandal Fallout: Title IX Lawsuit that Led to Probes Could Have Wide Implications, USA Today, May 26, 2004
- ^ "TitleIX.info - Lisa Simpson – University of Colorado (CU)". www.titleix.info. Retrieved March 28, 2023.
- ^ "Woman who alleged rape at CU challenges dismissal". ESPN.com. August 20, 2006. Retrieved March 28, 2023.
- ^ "$2.8 million deal in CU rape case". The Denver Post. December 5, 2007. Retrieved March 28, 2023.
- ^ "CU settles case stemming from recruit scandal". The Denver Post. December 5, 2007. Retrieved March 28, 2023.
- ^ a b "Simpson v. University of Colorado". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 23, 2023.
- ^ "Simpson v. Univ, 500 F.3d 1170 | 10th Cir., Judgment, Law, casemine.com". casemine.com. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
- ^ Martin A. Schwartz, Supreme Court Defines Deliberate Indifference, 1994 Sup. CT. Preview 159 (1994-1995).
- ^ "Estelle v Gamble". Oyez.
- ^ "Farmer v Brennan". Oyez.
- ^ "U. of Colorado settles sexual-assault lawsuit for $2.85M". www.summitdaily.com. The Associated Press. December 5, 2007. Retrieved March 28, 2023.
- ^ "CU and Lisa Simpson Settle 5-year Litigation". Hutchinson Black and Cook. December 2007. Retrieved March 28, 2023.