Columbia’s $220 Million Settlement Agreement. As OCR has experienced staffing cuts and is seemingly also not currently prioritizing complaints of Title IX sexual harassment, private causes of action may shift to be the primary means for addressing Title IX sexual harassment claims. A recent district court reconsideration of a previously dismissed ruling in Doe v. Board of Supervisors of LSU from the Middle District of Louisiana highlights several shifting questions on how courts may analyze private Title IX claims by students against their school. This recent decision concerns the claims of six complainants at the Louisiana State University, who were all allegedly sexually harassed over a period of several years by the same graduate student, and who sued LSU after a report by Husch Blackwell in 2021 revealed deficiencies in LSU’s handling of Title IX matters.

The case, among other issues, raised the question of whether or not Title IX “heightened risk” claims can proceed in the Fifth Circuit. To establish a heightened risk claim under Title IX, five elements must be met:

• the defendant had actual knowledge of the harassment;
• the harasser was under the defendant’s control;
• the harassment was based on the victim’s sex;
• the harassment was ‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bar[red] the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit;’ and
• the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.

Generally, heightened risk claims concern an educational institution’s deliberate mishandling of a claim that then puts other students at risk, and the plaintiffs asserted that this was an actionable claim under Title IX. In the initial ruling, the district court judge rejected this argument, citing a sentence from Poloceno v. Dallas Independent School District that claimed “[the Fifth Circuit has] never recognized or adopted a Title IX theory of liability based on a general ‘heightened risk’ of sex discrimination, and we decline to do so.” But on the motion for reconsideration, the Middle District of Louisiana reversed course, noting that several cases within the Circuit since its original ruling had permitted Title IX “heightened risk” claims.

Within the plaintiffs’ claims of this case, there was also a question as to when the timeframe for the statute of limitations began. Louisiana has a one-year statute of limitations for personal claims, and LSU argued that each of the plaintiff’s claims was barred. In response, the plaintiffs argued that the timeline was subject to the doctrine of “equitable tolling,” which allows courts to extend a statute of limitations if a plaintiff could not have possibly acted within the traditional period. The plaintiffs argued that the tolling period for their claims did not begin until the 2021 release of the Husch Blackwell report, which highlighted the many deficiencies of LSU’s Title IX Office during the time period of plaintiffs’ sexual harassment.

Citing the case of Owens v. Louisiana State University, the court recognized on reconsideration that for “heightened risk” claims, the date of the 2021 Husch Blackwell report was the appropriate date when the claims began tolling and were thus not time barred. Legal questions remain, however, is whether there are other circumstances in similar cases that warrant equitable tolling as the judge applied a narrow set of conditions in evaluating the case. As federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) face staffing shortages and shifting enforcement priorities, Title IX leaders may see a rise in private litigation as the primary vehicle for addressing sexual harassment in education.

A recent reconsideration of a dismissed lawsuit, Doe v. Board of Supervisors of LSU, by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, is a case worth looking at. The decision has important implications for how courts may treat “heightened risk” Title IX claims, and it may signal a broader trend toward the courts playing a larger role in Title IX enforcement.

What happened at LSU?

The case stems from the claims of six students at Louisiana State University (LSU) who allege they were sexually harassed over a period of years by the same graduate student. In 2021, an independent investigation by Husch Blackwell documented widespread deficiencies in LSU’s handling of Title IX complaints.

The plaintiffs argue that LSU’s failure to respond adequately created a heightened risk of sexual harassment for others, constituting a violation of Title IX. The district court initially dismissed the case, citing the Fifth Circuit’s previous reluctance to recognize this theory of liability (Poloceno v. DISD, 826 F. App’x 359 (5th Cir. 2020)). However, in June 2024, the court reversed its decision, noting that more recent rulings in the Fifth Circuit have permitted heightened risk claims to proceed.

What are “heightened risk” claims?

A “heightened risk” claim under Title IX involves a set of five criteria:

• 1. The defendant had actual knowledge of the harassment;
• 2. The harasser was under the defendant’s control;
• 3. The harassment was based on the victim’s sex;
• 4. The harassment was ‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bar[red] the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit;’ and
• 5. The defendant was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.

The concept is typically used when an institution mishandles an initial report in a way that enables further harm to others.

In reconsidering the LSU case, the court acknowledged that recent Fifth Circuit rulings (e.g., Owens v. Louisiana State University, 2022 WL 1810680) provide precedent for allowing these claims to move forward.

But what about the statute of limitations?

Louisiana has a one-year statute of limitations for personal claims. LSU argued the plaintiffs waited too long. But the plaintiffs successfully argued for equitable tolling, saying they could not have known the full scope of LSU’s failures until the 2021 Husch Blackwell report was released. The court agreed (for now), though it narrowly applied the tolling only to this case’s unique circumstances.

What does this mean for Title IX leaders?

The Doe ruling reflects something that could become a reality: when OCR enforcement is limited, private litigation may increasingly define institutional accountability under Title IX.

This is not the first sign of that shift. In recent years, there have been lawsuits across the country—from SFFA v. Harvard to more localized Title IX and ADA claims—challenging institutional practices in court rather than through federal complaints. For those in Higher Ed., especially in the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi), this ruling may open the door for more lawsuits claiming a pattern of institutional indifference, even if no federal enforcement action is pending.

For K-12 leaders, the case serves as a reminder that civil litigation remains an available option for families and students, and that poor internal handling of a complaint may not stay internal.

Tuesday Takeaways

• Private lawsuits may fill the gap left by limited OCR enforcement. As OCR continues to manage staffing limitations and an evolving focus, more claimants may pursue Title IX remedies directly through the courts.
• “Heightened risk” claims are gaining traction. Title IX leaders should understand this evolving legal theory and evaluate whether their institution’s practices could unintentionally create a pattern of risk for students.
• Documentation and follow-through matter. Deficiencies in response, especially when documented publicly, can become the basis for extended liability years later.
• Equitable tolling may extend exposure. Courts may allow lawsuits to proceed outside the usual statute of limitations if institutional failures are discovered later via external reports.
• Be proactive, not reactive. When possible, invest in preventative training, internal audits, and third-party reviews. These may help shield you from both legal risk and reputational harm.