Deliberate-indifference claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments (20 USC §§ 1681–1688) related to sexual harassment; Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ.; Vance v. Spencer Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist.; Patterson v. Hudson Area Schs.; Theno v. Tonganoxie Unified Sch. Dist. No. 464 (D KS); McPherson v. Kelsey; Kollaritsch v. Michigan State Univ. Bd. of Trs.; Whether the defendant-University had “actual knowledge” of the harassment; Whether the University’s course of action was unreasonable; Kelly v. Yale Univ. (Unpub. D CT); Whether there was an “admission of inadequacy” by the University; Pahssen v. Merrill Cmty. Sch. Dist.; Whether the University’s actions “caused” plaintiff to be harassed or made her more vulnerable; Williams v. Board of Regents of Univ. Sys. of GA (11th Cir.); Hartsel v. Keys; Bailey v. Floyd Cnty. Bd. of Educ. By & Through Towler; Soper v. Hoben; Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger Cnty.

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] In an en banc order, the court vacated its prior opinion (see e-Journal #72568 in the 3/13/2020 edition for that opinion), which had reversed summary judgment for defendant-University on plaintiff-Foster’s claim that the University was “deliberately indifferent” to the sexual harassment she suffered from a fellow student (respondent). The court voted for rehearing en banc and restored the case to the docket as a pending appeal.