Eighth Circuit Rejects University's Sovereign Immunity Defense

A student sued the University of Arkansas, alleging that its response to her report of sexual assault on campus was deliberately indifferent in violation of Title IX.  The university sought dismissal on the grounds of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is the constitutional doctrine that protects states -- including arms of the state, like state universities -- from being sued in federal courts. The exception, however, is when states consent to be sued or waive their sovereign immunity.  Traditionally, courts have agreed that accepting federal money amounted to a waiver of sovereign immunity.  Predictably, the federal district court in Arkansas denied the university's motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds.

But the university fought this decision by appealing to the appellate court for the Eighth Circuit. It solicited support from five other states, who submitted an amicus brief asserting the same theory, that sovereign immunity protects a state university from being sued, at least for damages, under Title IX.  The states argued that a 2011 Supreme Court decision called Sossamon v. Texas changed the test for evaluating whether a state waived its sovereign immunity by requiring "clear declaration" by the state of its intent to so waive. Applied to cases arising under spending-clause statutes like Title IX, that means, the statute itself must contain "unequivocal" language that accepting federal money constitutes waiver.

Here, the relevant statute is the Remedies Equalization Act of 1986, which expressly provide that "a State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court" for a violation of Title IX and other enumerated federal civil rights laws.  The University of Arkansas's argument is that this statute, despite its clear language, does not clearly declare whether a state waives sovereign immunity for damages claims. In ruling against the university's appeal, the Eighth Circuit pointed out that the Remedies Equalization Act clearly stated that states shall be liable for "remedies at law and equity."  Remedies in equity are things like injunctions and declaratory judgments. Remedies are law, the court explained, are damages. The court also found evidence that Congress intended the waiver to apply to claims for damages.  Thus, the court of appeals concluded:

The Remedies Equalization amendment clearly and unambiguously expresses the University’s consent to Title IX suits for damages. By accepting federal funds, the University in fact consented to suits for compensatory damages for violations of Title IX.

Though the university's argument was a long shot, it generated a lot of attention and concern over its potential to seriously curtail the effectiveness of Title IX as a remedy for state university students whose reports of sexual assault generated the institution's indifferent response. These cases are usually driven by a damages claim (as opposed to, say, Title IX athletics cases where the plaintiff is trying to get more resources, or to reinstate a discontinued team).  A university's indifference to sexual assault causes emotional distress, creates expenses (if it causes the student to transfer or otherwise interrupts their education), and may even subject the student to subsequent sexual harassment or misconduct, with its own resulting damages.  If the court had somehow ruled in favor of the university on this matter and prevented state university students from seeking this relief, those students in the Eighth Circuit would have experienced a serious curtailment of their civil rights. The court's rejection of this argument, however, preserves the federal courts as a forum where Title IX claims arising from sexual misconduct can be addressed and where compensation, if warranted, be awarded.