Thought Leadership

Colorado Colleges and Universities May Soon Face New Liability for Handling of Title IX Claims

March 23, 2023 Advisory

The Colorado Supreme Court will soon consider whether a school’s sexual misconduct policy, and its adherence to the policy, may give rise to contractual and tort claims. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals, Division VII, and finds that such contractual and tort duties exist under Colorado law, a student, employee or faculty member dissatisfied with the outcome of their Title IX investigation will have additional recourse in the courts to challenge the school’s determination. All institutions of higher education that participate in the Title IV student aid program or otherwise receive federal funds should follow this case and its outcome.

On March 6, 2023, the Court granted University of Denver’s (DU) Petition for Writ of Certiorari in University of Denver v. Doe (No. 22SC499, Court of Appeals Case No. 20CA1545). In the case, a student filed a complaint of sexual misconduct against another student, which DU investigated using its Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) Procedures. The OEO Procedures contained a number of provisions that are intended to ensure a “thorough, impartial and fair investigation,” such as permitting both parties the opportunity to submit witness names and other relevant information. The OEO Procedures also confirmed that “Investigators will review and determine the weight and materiality of all submitted information and including the necessity of interviewing potential information.”

The respondent took issue with the thoroughness of the investigation, in which, among other purported deficiencies, the investigators initially failed to interview any of the respondent’s proposed witnesses and relied in substance on an incomplete medical report submitted by the complainant. After exhausting the internal appeal process, the respondent filed suit against DU[1] alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of duty of care. While the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DU on each of these claims, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding both that these claims could be brought, and that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment.

First, the Court of Appeals held that although “[t]he words ‘thorough,’ ‘impartial,’ and ‘fair’ [were] not defined in the OEO Procedures’ definitional section,” the terms were “give[n] meaning” by the “specific investigational requirements” found within the OEO Procedures, making them “sufficiently definite to determine whether the contractual terms have been performed or breached.” Having found that the OEO Procedures constituted an enforceable contract, the Court of Appeals went on to hold that there were sufficient material facts in the record relating to various decisions and arguable failures of the investigators to obtain and consider relevant information that precluded summary judgment on the question of whether the investigators had failed to conduct a “thorough, impartial and fair” investigation and thus violated the OEO Procedures. The Court of Appeals also confirmed that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applied to the OEO Procedures and, for the same reasons as noted above, found that summary judgment was also not appropriate for the breach of implied covenant claim.

DU was also found to owe the respondent a duty of care, separate from the contractual duty arising from the OEO Procedures themselves, to adopt fair procedures and to implement them with reasonable care in the investigation and adjudication of the sexual misconduct claim brought against him. Citing the 2015 case of Westin Operator, LLC v. Groh, the Court of Appeals explained that “[t]o determine whether a duty should be recognized,” it would weigh four factors: “(1) the risk involved in the defendant’s conduct; (2) the foreseeability and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the defendant’s conduct; (3) the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury; and (4) the consequences of placing the burden on the defendant.” The Court ultimately found that all except the third factor—the magnitude of the burden—weighed in favor of recognizing a duty in the case of a student sexual misconduct complaint, and thus “conclude[d] that DU had a duty to adopt fair procedures and to implement those procedures with reasonable care in the investigation and adjudication of allegations that [the respondent] committed non-consensual sexual contact.” The Court clarified, however, that “[i]f DU adopts fair procedures and implements those procedures with reasonable care, the outcome of the investigation and adjudication is not open to question.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case is an important development for all Colorado institutions of higher education that receive federal funding and must therefore comply with the requirements of Title IX as they apply to the handling of complaints of sexual misconduct and other forms of gender-based discrimination and harassment. In particular, if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Court of Appeals finding both a contractual obligation arising from a Title IX policy, which recipients of federal funds are required to have by law, and a tort duty of care to adopt “fair” procedures and to implement them “with reasonable care,” schools may soon find themselves the subject of an increasing number of claims by parties who are dissatisfied with the outcome of an investigation.

We will be tracking this development and will provide additional information as it becomes available. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact your regular AT lawyer, the authors listed below, or any member of our  Education industry team.


[1] Respondent also named DU’s trustees, employees and agents in the suit, but the Court of Appeals ultimately found that neither the contract nor the tort claims could be brought against these additional parties, and the Supreme Court will not review these issues.

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Chicago, IL
  • Denver, CO
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • London, England
  • Miami, FL
  • New York, NY
  • Orange County, CA
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
800 Boylston St.
30th Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicago, IL
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606-1520
Google Maps
Chicago, Illinois
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Dublin, Ireland
Fitzwilliam Hall, Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
Google Maps
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
101 E. High St.
First Floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
7160 Rafael Rivera Way
Suite 320
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
London, England
Royal College of Surgeons of England
38-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London, WC2A 3PE
Google Maps
Miami, FL
355 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Google Maps
Photo of Miami, Florida
New York, NY
7 Times Square, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Google Maps
New York City skyline
Orange County, CA
19800 MacArthur Boulevard
Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Google Maps
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
222 South Main St.
Suite 1830
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, D.C.
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Google Maps
Photo of Washington, D.C. with the Capitol in the foreground and Washington Monument in the background.
Wilmington, DE
1007 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Google Maps
Wilmington, Delaware