How Do Prior Settlements Impact Future Title IX Cases Demanding Institutional Liability for a Student's Misconduct?

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Mar 16, 2020 | 0 Comments

A newly-dismissed Title IX lawsuit exemplifies the ongoing battle over institutional liability for student-on-student sexual misconduct. The invisible player in these cases, though, is the growing body of settlements that accused schools have offered in order to keep out of the courtroom. Those settlements are making it more difficult to defend against these allegations of institutional liability, all while increasing the number of lawsuits that are being filed, claiming this very type of liability.

Title IX Claim Against the University of Arizona After Running Back's Guilty Plea

The University of Arizona has faced a pair of Title IX lawsuits from two female undergraduates over alleged sexual misconduct from one of the school's running backs on the football team.

According to the lawsuits, in September 2016, Orlando Bradford had sexually abused one of the women for a period of several months, and had held the other woman against her will in his apartment and physically abused her over the course of several days. The second woman called the police after her incident. The next day, the first woman came forward with her allegations.

Bradford was immediately kicked off the football team. In September, he pleaded guilty to two counts of domestic violence and was sentenced to between 2 and 7.5 years in jail. Immediately after his guilty plea, the two women filed Title IX lawsuits against the University of Arizona, claiming that the school had negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and had deprived them of an education free from gender discrimination. They demanded that the school be held institutionally liable.

Federal Court Dismisses One Lawsuit

The federal court hearing the cases dismissed the one brought by the woman who first called the police after being held in Bradford's apartment. She had claimed that the University should be held liable because it knew that Bradford was a threat to women after receiving similar allegations against him from others.

However, the court dismissed the case because the woman failed to present any evidence that the school had control over Bradford at his off-campus apartment at the time of the incidents.

The Title IX claim brought by the other victim is on the way to trial.

How Settlements Interfere With Other Cases

Institutional liability for Title IX violations is one of the most controversial aspects of the law because it lets alleged victims recover monetary compensation from colleges if the school doesn't take “appropriate action” after being notified of sexual misconduct. Many of these cases, like this one, claim that the school knew someone posed a threat and should have done more to prevent them from acting, again.

Schools know that they could face hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability if a court finds against them and that their name will be tarnished even if they are cleared. Many of the schools facing these lawsuits are settling them out of court, like Michigan StateEastern Michigan, and Southern Arkansas University, to name just a few.

The problem with settling these claims is that it tells alleged victims that it can pay to come forward. While some of those who do come forward will have legitimate cases, others will not. Schools, however, will have to defend against them all.

Title IX Defense Lawyer and National Advisor Joseph D. Lento

Joseph D. Lento is a Title IX defense lawyer and a national Title IX advisor. Call his law office at (888) 535-3686 or contact him online.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience passionately fighting for the futures of his clients. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at universities and colleges across the United States while concurrently fighting in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, and New Jersey. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand universities and colleges across the United States. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact our offices today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations – the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.