Whether Davis's 'vulnerability' prong requires plaintiffs to prove additional, post-notice sexual harassment to state a claim for damages under Title IX

QUESTION PRESENTED In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 US. 629, 633 (1999), this Court held that recipients of federal education funding may be held liable in damages under Title IX for their deliberate indifference to student-on-student sexual harassment. In accordance with the plain language of Title IX, Davis clarified that “fijf a funding recipient does not engage in harassment directly, it may not be liable for damages unless its deliberate indifference ‘subjects’ its students to harassment”—i.e., “cause[s them] to undergo’ harassment or ‘make[s] them liable or vulnerable’ to it.” Id. at 644645 (citations omitted and original alterations adopted). The question presented is: Whether, as the Sixth and Eighth Circuits hold, in disagreement with the First, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, Davis’s “vulnerability” prong requires plaintiffs to prove additional, post-notice sexual harassment in order to state a claim for damages under Title IX.