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, 3:21-cv-564, 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. However, last month, 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:

• 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.

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 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 to file a private cause of action. 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.

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 such high-profile cases as 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 too, 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.