“J.K. v. Arizona Board of Regents (02/26/2008)
A student from the Arizona state university was barred from the university following allegations of sexual harassment. However the Arizona state university latter reinstated him. He was then accused of sexually abusing the plaintiff in J.K. v. Arizona board of Regents. The plaintiff sued ASU for contravening her Title IX rights. At the beginning of 2009 a court settlement instructed ASU to compensate the plaintiff with $850000 dollars and recruit a student safety coordinator to restructure the universitys policy on sexual abuse and assault (Munson 2009).
Darnel Henderson a member of the ASU football team was allegedly accused of threatening physically holding and harassing several female students at a pre-freshman alteration program. He was also reported to have exposed himself to a member of the staff indecently. He was subsequently expelled by the ASU board due to his actions. However following a protest from the ASU football team coach Henderson was later reinstated at ASU under a zero tolerance program. He was allowed to reside in the freshman hostels (American Civil Right Liberties Union (a) n.d.).
During spring Henderson entered the residential room of a fellow student J.K. and was reported to have sexually assaulted her. From the findings of an investigation carried out by the university Henderson was found guilty and subsequently expelled from the school for the second time. After his expulsion it became vivid that Henderson would not be able to pay damages and the plaintiffs lawyer opted to sue the university board. During February in 2008 the ACLU womens rights project (WRP) in conjunction with the ACLU of Arizona and various womens advocacy societies filed a petition on behalf of the plaintiff. The brief argued to the court that ASU was legally liable under Title IX for the sexual assault and discrimination experienced by the plaintiff. In this case ASU was aware that the player in question had been previously reported for several accounts of sexual harassment against female students and staff members (American Civil Right Liberties Union (b) n.d.).
The legal question was whether the ASU board had knowledge about the conduct of Henderson when they reinstated him to the university and dorms of residence. Finally JK sued the ASU and argued that the university was liable for the incident since ASU reinstated Henderson despite being proven to be a security risk to both female students and female staff members. On 30th of September 2008 the district court presided over by judge Mary Murguia refused a motion for summary judgment placed by ASU. Citing WRPs brief and basing on statements tabled in response to the ASU brief the court held that the ASU board had knowledge of the alleged sexual harassment. The court held that the school was responsible under the provisions of Title IX for the conduct of students. If the school had precise knowledge about the potential risk that Henderson posed towards the equal opportunity of female students and staff in the institution it was supposed to take the necessary action (AAUW n.d.).
On the 8th of January 2009 a satisfactory agreement was obtained to settle the matter. This agreement stipulated that ASU should employ a nationwide student safety advisor. The advisor was to be tasked with the responsibility of carrying out reforms and reviews of the existing procedures for investigating and reporting cases of sexual harassment and assault. The university was also to award the plaintiff fees and damages amounting to $850000 (Munson 2009).”

  

Click Order Now to get 100% Original Answer Customized to your instructions!