In a precedential opinion issued on May 29, 2025, the Third Circuit addressed for the first time whether a non-student, non-employee plaintiff may bring Title IX claims against a university for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation that occurred outside the university’s education programs.
Plaintiff’s Allegations of Sexual Harassment, Assault & Retaliation
In Oldham v. Penn State University, et al., the plaintiff, a private fencing coach unaffiliated with Penn State, alleged she was sexually harassed and assaulted by a Penn State assistant fencing coach on a cross-country flight. She further alleged that when she reported the incident to the school’s head coach, the coach rebuffed her, pressured her not to report the incident, and then with the alleged assailant, initiated a retaliation campaign within the fencing community. Plaintiff also claimed that the university’s investigation into her formal complaint substantiated the assistant coach’s conduct but found that he had not violated any school policy.
Plaintiff filed suit in federal court in North Carolina, where she resided. Her claims included Title IX violations, as well as state-law tort claims, including defamation, failure to train and supervise, negligence, battery, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In response to defense motions to dismiss based on improper venue and for the sake of judicial efficiency, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina transferred the suit to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which then dismissed the entire case. As a matter of first impression, the court held that to bring a Title IX claim, a plaintiff must be in the “zone of interests” protected by that law. Since the plaintiff was neither a student nor an employee of the university, she was outside the zone. The court also dismissed multiple tort claims as untimely, applying Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for defamation (1 year) and negligence (2 years). The court dismissed the claims for failure to train and supervise based on insufficiency of the pleadings.
Third Circuit Finds Zone of Interests Test Applies to Title IX Claims
The Third Circuit clarified that the zone of interests test applies to Title IX actions, reasoning that since the test applied to the Fair Housing Act in the United States Supreme Court case, Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami (U.S. 2017), it applies to Title IX actions.
The court then reviewed Supreme Court precedent pertaining to Title IX and developed a two-part test to determine whether a Title IX plaintiff is within the zone of interests:
- did the school exercise substantial control over the alleged offender(s), and
- did the school exercise substantial control over the context in which the alleged conduct occurred.
While the court acknowledged that the university exercised control over its employees (the alleged offenders), it found that the airplane setting was not under university control. However, the court held that the plaintiff’s claims for retaliation could fall under Title IX if the underlying conduct occurred on campus or at school-sanctioned, school-hosted events.
Tort Claims, Dismissal Reversed as to the Alleged Offender
The court affirmed the dismissal of the state tort claims against the university and its employees under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations, rejecting arguments for equitable tolling. Since the Middle District of North Carolina transferred the tort claims against the assistant coach based on judicial convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations applied. Accordingly, the court vacated the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s tort claims against the assistant coach for battery, negligence, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to impose vicarious liability on the university under respondeat superior, finding that underlying claims were inadequately pled. It also declined to recognize a freestanding common law duty to investigate or respond to Title IX complaints from non-students or non-employees.
Key Takeaways for Employers and Educational Institutions
- Title IX exposure is not unlimited. The Third Circuit held that Title IX plaintiffs must establish that both the alleged offender and the setting/context of the misconduct were under the university’s control.
- Off-campus conduct is an area of uncertainty. Mere participation in a university program (e.g., athletic events) does not necessarily establish Title IX liability unless the university exercises control over the setting.
- Beware of venue transfer mechanics. The statute of limitations for tort claims may vary based on how and why a case is transferred. Courts may apply the original forum’s law, even if the case is ultimately heard elsewhere.
- Vicarious liability defenses remain strong. Institutions are unlikely to face Title IX or tort liability based on employees’ individual actions absent timely and well-pled facts showing institutional responsibility.
This decision clarifies the scope of Title IX liability for educational institutions. Schools and their counsel should remain vigilant in evaluating their Title IX obligations, particularly where off-campus or third-party participants are concerned. Careful recordkeeping, prompt internal reporting, and a clear delineation of employee roles and authority remain critical risk management tools.
