Whether a school district may be held liable under Title IX for student-on-student sexual harassment based solely on a school official's alleged indifference that creates a vulnerability to further harassment, or whether liability requires actual knowledge of harassment and deliberate indifference to known misconduct as established in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education

an extension of time will allow counsel to thoroughly analyze the split of authority between several circuit courts of appeals, and the extent to which various lower courts have strayed from stringent liability standard set forth in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999). Compare Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 504 F.3d 165, 171 (1st Cir. 2007), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 555 U.S. 246 (2009); Doe v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 1 F.4th 257, 273— 74 (4 Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 442 (2022); and Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1295-96 (11 Cir. 2007) with Kollaritsch v. Michigan St. Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 944 F.3d 613, 623-24 (6t Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 554 (2020); K.T. v. Culver-Stockton College, 865 F.3d 1054, 1057-58 (8 Cir. 2017); Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 740 (9* Cir. 2000); and Escue v. Northern Ok. College, 450 F.3d 1146, 1155-56 (10* Cir. 2006). The decisions from the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits—which allow for Title IX liability where a school’s alleged indifference results in a mere “vulnerability” to further harassment—also implicate important issues of Article III standing. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 1418. Ct. 2190, 2211 (2021) (noting a “significant difference between G) actual harm that has occurred but is not readily quantifiable . . . and (ii) a mere risk of future harm,” and rejecting argument that “the mere risk of future harm, without more, suffices to demonstrate Article III standing in a suit for damages”). Additionally, the undersigned has had a number of unexpected client matters arise on short notice, including seven depositions noticed in a Voting Rights Act lawsuit for the weeks of August 21, 2023 and August 28, 2023. [Civil Action No. 3:22cv-00387, Shafer et al. v. Pearland Independent School District, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division)]. In late July 2023, the undersigned was asked to defend a school district in a teacher termination hearing under Chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code, which involves relatively short statutory deadlines. And, over the course of the summer, the undersigned has assisted numerous school districts and community colleges with various personnel complaints and grievances stemming from employment decisions made at the end of the 2022-2023 academic year, and with various leave and accommodation requests submitted in advance of the 2023-2024 academic year. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE: The undersigned conferred with counsel for the Respondent regarding this request. Respondent is not opposed. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District respectfully requests that its application for a 14-day extension within which to file its petition for a writ of certiorari, up to and including Monday, September 25, 2023, be granted. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie A. Hamm, Counsel of Record Christopher B. Gilbert THOMPSON & HORTON LLP 3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77027 (718) 554-6714 COUNSEL FOR CYPRESSFAIRBANKS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT DATED: August 23, 2023 EXHIBIT 1 Guited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circutt ste Sa Creat eee FILED November 14, 2022 No. 20-20657 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JANE ROE, versus CyYPRESS-FAIRBANKS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant