By Dr. Rachel S. Silverman
In 2014, when Jane Roe was a freshman at Cypress Creek High School, she was sexually assaulted by another student. She reported the assault and ongoing harassment to Cypress-Fairbanks ISD (CFISD). She claims CFISD responded with deliberate indifference, failed to investigate or offer academic or emotional support, and recommended she drop out of school, which she did in 2016. She later went on to earn her GED.
Roe filed a lawsuit under Title IX and initially also under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stating the school district’s lack of response showed “deliberate indifference,” because they knew about the problem and ignored it. The trial court dismissed Roe’s claims, but she appealed. The 5th Circuit allowed her post-assault Title IX claim to proceed, stating a reasonable jury could find that CFISD’s inaction contributed to her loss of educational access.
Around the same time, the Supreme Court decided in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (2022) emotional distress damages are not allowed under laws like Title IX. This impacted the type of damages Roe could receive in her case, so Roe amended her original complaint.
Roe’s damage claims included the loss of educational opportunities like missing out on sports, counseling, and academic programs as well as the loss of potential earnings and scholarships and the cost of college she must now pay herself. She hired three experts to support the claims: Dr. Vannest, Reg Gibbs, and Thomas Roney. Dr. Vannest stated the school ignored warning signs and failed to follow policies, which ultimately led to Roe leaving school. Reg Gibbs estimated Roe’s earning potential if she had stayed in school, possibly earning a scholarship, and graduated from college. Thomas Roney calculated how much money Roe might lose over her lifetime without a college degree. The court allowed the expert testimony from Dr. Vannest, but rejected testimony from Reg Gibbs and Thomas Roney, because their opinions on earnings and scholarships were based on guesses about what Roe might have done in the future. CFISD’s expert testimony from Flores and Martin was also rejected because their opinions didn’t help clarify damages or improperly commented on the school’s legal responsibility.
The court denied CFISD’s motion for summary judgment on Roe’s claim for loss of educational opportunities and benefits available to CFISD high school students. Roe’s case will proceed to trial, but only on the issue of whether CFISD response to her assault deprived her of educational opportunities in high school. She may receive compensation for missing out on those opportunities, but not for future earnings, scholarships, or tuition. Expert testimony will be limited to what is directly relevant to those educational losses. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of CFISD on Roe’s claims for loss of past and future earnings, diminished earning capacity, and costs associated with higher education. The decision in this case reinforces Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (2022) limitations on Title IX damages, while affirming plaintiffs may still pursue recovery for loss of access to educational opportunities. This case delineates the boundaries between athletic participation as an educational benefit and the speculative economic value of future sports-related scholarships.
References
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 1562 (2022)
Roe v. Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112693 *; 2025 LX 185578; 2025 WL 1678080
Dr. Rachel S. Silverman is an Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator for the Sport and Recreation Management Program at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. She is on the SRLA and COSMA Board of Directors. Her research agenda focuses on women in sports, including legal, sociological, and ethical aspects of sports management.
