Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)

Citation
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Parent Document
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-02-08

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text

1,357 chars
[7] Critically for present purposes, Gebser does not make
pre-litigation notice of an alleged violation a prerequisite to
recovery in every Title IX case, or even in every sexual
harassment case. Proof of actual notice is required only when
the alleged Title IX violation consists of an institution’s delib-
erate indifference to acts that “do not involve official policy
of the recipient entity.” Id. In sexual harassment cases, it is
the deliberate failure to curtail known harassment, rather than
the harassment itself, that constitutes the intentional Title IX
violation.12 See Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526
U.S. 629, 641 (1999) (holding that Gebser permits the plain-
tiff “to hold the Board liable for its own decision to remain
idle in the face of known student-on-student harassment in its
schools.”). The Tenth Circuit has held that a corollary of this
principle is that where the official policy is one of deliberate
indifference to a known overall risk of sexual harassment,
notice of a particular harassment situation and an opportunity
  12
    The harassment itself may be actionable under state law or 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 292.
2224 MANSOURIAN v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY            OF   CALIFORNIA
to cure it are not predicates for liability. See Simpson v. Univ.
of Colo. Boulder, 500 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007).13