Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 1 of 43 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13467 ____________________ PASCHA THOMAS, as Guardian of Jane Doe, a minor as next friend, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus CITY SCHOOLS OF DECATUR, DR. DAVID DUDE, individually and in his official capacity, MARCIA FOWLER, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-02317-MHC ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 2 of 43 2 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Pascha Thomas, a Black woman, reported to City Schools of Decatur (“CSD”) school district that her daughter, a kin- dergartner, had been sexually assaulted by another child in a re- stroom at her elementary school. Dissatisfied with CSD’s response, Thomas filed a lawsuit raising a hostile learning environment claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–88, and a race discrimination claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. Thomas asserted that CSD acted with deliberate indifference to her daughter’s sexual harassment in violation of Title IX and that CSD treated Thomas and her daughter worse because of their race in violation of Ti- tle VI. The district court granted CSD summary judgment on both claims. Thomas challenges the summary judgment on appeal. After careful consideration of the record, and with the benefit of oral ar- gument, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Jane Doe, 1 a five-year-old Black girl, attended kindergarten at Oakhurst Elementary, a CSD school. In November of 2017, she told her mother that a classmate had sexually assaulted her in a school restroom. We begin by describing the facts, including 1 The parties use this alias to protect the child’s privacy. We do the same. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 3 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 3 Thomas’s efforts to report this incident to CSD and CSD’s re- sponse. We then recount this case’s procedural history. A. Factual Background After school on November 16, 2017, Thomas observed Jane Doe acting abnormally and asked her if she was alright. 2 Jane told her mother about an incident that had occurred that day in the girls’ restroom at school. She said that a boy, later identified as John Doe, 3 had pushed her against the wall and stuck his fingers through her leggings into her vagina, causing her pain. The next morning, Thomas took her daughter to school and reported to Dawn Durham, the school nurse; Laura Deming, the school counselor; and Cindy Aldridge, an instructional coach; that her daughter had been sexually assaulted. According to Thomas, when she made the report, Jane Doe was present and told Durham the name of the student who assaulted her. Thomas says that the school employees did not respond immediately; they merely whis- pered among themselves. Thomas then demanded to speak with the school’s princi- pal, Marcia Fowler. She was told that Fowler was busy on a phone 2 In this section, we describe the facts underlying Thomas’s Title IX and Ti- tle VI claims. Because the district court resolved these claims at summary judgment, we consider the evidence in the summary judgment record, “view- ing all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of” Thomas, the non-moving party. Phillips v. Legacy Cabinets, 87 F.4th 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). 3 As with Jane Doe, we use this alias to protect the child’s privacy. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 4 of 43 4 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 call. Thomas saw Durham and Demming go into Fowler’s office and speak with her for 10 to 15 minutes. 4 After waiting more than 30 minutes and making multiple requests to see Fowler, Thomas left to go to an appointment. Even though Thomas left the school before Fowler spoke with her, Fowler acted on the sexual assault report. Within 15 minutes of learning about the report, she relayed it to Bruce Roaden, CSD’s Executive Director of Student Support. Roaden was responsible for “communicating, monitoring, and enforcing” Title IX procedures and supervising CSD’s Title IX coordinator. Doc. 106-17 at 3. 5 Roaden informed CSD Superintendent David Dude of the sexual assault report. Dude put Roaden in charge of investigating the incident. By 9:15 a.m., approximately one hour after Thomas re- ported the assault, a school resource officer with the Decatur Police Department and two CSD social workers arrived at Oakhurst Ele- mentary. Fowler and Durham shared with them the substance of Thomas’s report. The school resource officer collected statements from Durham, Deming, and Aldridge. For his investigation, he needed 4 CSD offers a different explanation for the delay. It says that Fowler was una- ble to speak with Thomas immediately because Fowler was in a meeting with another parent. Because at the summary judgment stage we view the evidence in the light most favorable to Thomas, however, we assume that Fowler spoke with Durham and Demming while Thomas waited. 5 “Doc.” refers to the district court’s docket entries. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 5 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 5 to know where the reported assault occurred. But he was con- cerned that his police uniform might scare Jane Doe. Because Jane knew Durham, Durham met with her instead and asked her where the incident happened. The child took Durham to a school re- stroom.6 Neither Durham nor the school resource officer asked Jane any additional questions because they believed that “given the nature of the allegation, [they] should not interview either child to avoid suggesting facts or otherwise compromising the integrity of any future interviews by trained professionals.” Doc. 160 at 4. The school resource office then informed the social workers that “due to the suspect’s age there would be no criminal prosecution regard- ing the” incident. Doc. 113 at 235. Later that day, Fowler met with school and district employ- ees about Thomas’s report. She told Jane Doe’s teacher and the paraprofessional assigned to her classroom about the report. Fowler asked them whether it was possible that Jane Doe and John Doe were out of the class at the bathroom at the same time. The teacher answered that it was unlikely. The teacher and the paraprofessional said that they did not allow John Doe to leave the classroom by himself and instead had a school employee escort him when he needed to use the restroom. They required John to be ac- companied by an adult when leaving the classroom to use the 6 Thomas testified that neither she nor her daughter ever told the school in which bathroom the assault occurred. But Thomas was not present when Durham spoke with Jane Doe. Thomas thus did not have personal knowledge sufficient to dispute the school resource officer’s testimony. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 6 of 43 6 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 restroom because of past incidents when he had acted defiantly or aggressively and destroyed school property. But he had never been aggressive toward other students, nor had he caused any incidents in the restroom before. During this meeting, Fowler directed the teacher and paraprofessional to ensure that both Jane Doe and John Doe were supervised during future visits to the restroom. Fowler also met with other administrators to compare the school’s master class schedule to the schedule for Jane Doe’s class- room. After considering these schedules and the teacher’s state- ments, Fowler and the other administrators “struggl[ed] to under- stand how the alleged assault had occurred, as it did not appear that the two children would have ever had an opportunity to go to the restroom at the same time.” Doc. 106-18 at 4. Next, Fowler met with the CSD social workers to discuss future actions concerning John Doe. She notified John’s father of the incident, and he came to the school to discuss it. After the meeting with Fowler, Nicole Jefferson and Melvin Ratcliff, two CSD social workers, made reports to the Department of Family and Children Services (“DFCS”) about Jane Doe and John Doe. Based on the reported sexual assault, Jefferson and Ratcliff, who were mandatory reporters under Georgia law, concluded that they were required to make a report as to each child.7 7 Georgia law requires mandatory reporters, including school social workers, to make a report any time they have “reasonable cause to believe that sus- pected child abuse has occurred.” O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5(c)(1). Georgia law defines USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 7 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 7 To make their reports, Jefferson and Ratcliff used a form found on DFCS’s website for each child. The form required them to provide “Demographic Information” about the subject child’s parent or caregiver. Doc. 113 at 225. Jefferson made the report for Jane. In her report, Jefferson identified Thomas as Jane’s parent. She explained in the report that Jane had reported to the school that she had been touched by an- other student in the school bathroom. Jefferson noted that Jane’s family was unhoused and had been moving between motels and shelters. The form asked Jefferson to describe “the caregiver’s abil- ity to provide/protect for the child.” Id. at 227. Jefferson answered that Thomas was “capable of providing and protecting her chil- dren” but “need[ed] stable and consistent housing with financial assistance.” Id. In the area of the form asking for additional com- ments, Jefferson wrote that Thomas “need[ed] some financial sup- port and stable housing” because she was “having to find a new place to live ASAP.” Id. Jefferson checked a box on the form indicating that she wanted DFCS to notify her when the investigation was complete “child abuse” to include “physical injury . . . inflicted upon a child by a parent” and “[n]eglect of a child by a parent.” Id. § 19-7-5(a)(5)(A), (B). The definition of child abuse also includes “[s]exual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child.” Id. § 19-7-5(a)(5)(D). Mandatory reporters are required to report any instance of sexual abuse of a child even if no adult was involved in the abuse. See id. § 19-7-5(b)(17) (defining sexual abuse to include any “sex acts . . . between mi- nors if any individual is less than 14 years of age”). USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 8 of 43 8 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 and inform her whether the reported abuse was substantiated. 8 She expected, based on her prior experience, that in investigating her report, DFCS would arrange for a forensic interview of Jane. Ratcliff made the report for John. He included essentially the same information in his report for John as Jefferson did in her re- port for Jane. He included demographic information for John and his parents, identifying John as “Black or African American” and his parents as “White.” Doc. 115 at 307–08. He explained in his report that a female student had reported to the school that John had in- appropriately touched her in the school bathroom. Ratcliff noted in his report that John was adopted and explained his “concern” that John may “have needed some counseling support [to] help[] him to understand his adoptive background . . . and cope with be- ing African American and being raised in a White household.” Id. at 311. That afternoon, Thomas returned to Oakhurst. She met with Fowler, Durham, and Jefferson. Because Thomas and Jane Doe were unhoused, Robbin Dickerson, a CSD social worker who worked with unhoused families, also attended the meeting. During the meeting, Thomas asked what disciplinary measures would be put in place for John Doe and requested that he be removed from Jane’s classroom. Fowler declined to discuss John. CSD staff urged Thomas to take Jane to receive medical attention, and Thomas 8 Georgia law requires that when school personnel report child abuse or ne- glect, the reporter will receive written notification within five days of the con- clusion of the investigation. See O.C.G.A. § 49-5-41(a)(5)(B). USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 9 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 9 agreed to take her to the hospital following the meeting. The par- ties disagree on the rest of what was discussed at the meeting. Ac- cording to Fowler, she offered to move Jane to a different class- room, but Thomas did not want Jane to be moved. Fowler says that during this meeting she notified Thomas of the referral to DFCS. But according to Thomas, Fowler neither offered to move Jane to a different classroom nor told Thomas about the DFCS re- ferral. We assume for summary judgment purposes that Thomas’s account is accurate. After school hours, Roaden interviewed Fowler and other Oakhurst staff. He also instructed Dickerson to make sure that Thomas took Jane to the hospital, and Dickerson confirmed that Thomas had. Thomas took Jane, along with Thomas’s other children, to a children’s hospital. At the hospital, a nurse interviewed Jane about what had happened and “checked between her legs.” Doc. 108 at 68. A doctor examined Jane. The doctor requested a consultation with a social worker because of the report of sexual abuse. The social worker’s notes show that Thomas reported that law enforcement was already in- volved in the case and that “the school said they were going to call DFCS.” Doc. 120 at 318. The social worker noted that Thomas was unsure whether a report to DFCS had yet been made. A representa- tive of DFCS then contacted the social worker and asked that the “family not be discharged until he interview[ed] the patient and USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 10 of 43 10 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 other members of the family.” Id. The medical records reflect that the hospital made a referral to DFCS. A DFCS case manager, Ben Bell, met with Thomas and her children at the hospital. He interviewed Jane Doe in a separate room, away from her mother. He also interviewed Thomas, as well as Jane’s siblings. He advised Thomas that someone from DFCS would be contacting her. After Bell completed the inter- views, Jane was discharged from the hospital. Two days later, on November 19, Bell notified Jefferson that DFCS had opened an investigation into the sexual assault report. He expressed some skepticism about Thomas’s report, noting that she had frequently come to the attention of DFCS in the past. He also observed that Thomas’s children appeared to be “very well coached.” Doc. 113 at 231. Jefferson agreed that Jane Doe seemed to have been “coached.” Id. Jefferson then told Bell that she had instructed CSD’s homeless liaison “to be careful about believing some of these families. They are all not really homeless just looking for a quick come up to sue” and recover money. Id. at 231–32. After hearing from Bell about DFCS’s investigation, Jefferson emailed Fowler, Durham, and Roaden. She warned the staff to take precau- tions when interacting with Thomas and her family. The following week, CSD and Oakhurst were closed for the Thanksgiving holiday. Although the school was closed, Dickerson called Thomas to check on Jane. When classes resumed on Monday, November 27, 2017, Thomas did not send Jane to school. Instead, Jane was seen at the USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 11 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 11 Stephanie Blank Center for Safe and Healthy Children, which is a part of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta. Jane received a forensic medical examination. The results of the examination were “unre- markable.” Doc. 121 at 342. Although Jane was not in school, Thomas called the school several times that week. She left messages for Fowler but never re- ceived a return call. Around this time, Jefferson informed Fowler and other Oakhurst staff that Thomas had made similar sexual as- sault claims in the past. The same week, John Doe’s father called Fowler to com- plain about the school’s lack of communication. He was concerned that he had not received an update on the status of the DFCS in- vestigation. Fowler took his call and explained that she could not provide any information about the investigation. Later in the week, DFCS informed CSD that DFCS had decided not to open a full in- vestigation into John Doe. In early December, Jane had still not returned to Oakhurst. Thomas informed school staff that she wanted Jane to be trans- ferred to a new school. A week or so later, Jefferson and another CSD social worker went to Thomas’s home, but they were unable to speak with Thomas. 9 Shortly after the social workers’ visit, Thomas found a letter they had left on her doorstep informing her 9 At the time, Thomas and her children resided in an apartment that Dickerson helped them move into. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 12 of 43 12 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 that she risked being charged by DFCS if she did not bring her chil- dren to school. Around the same time, John Doe’s father made another complaint to Oakhurst administration. Although school staff were reminded to accompany John to the restroom after Thanksgiving, John’s father explained that John had experienced bullying in the restrooms at school in the first week of December. He asked the administrator to ensure that John had a chaperone in the restroom. After this conversation, Fowler and others reiterated to Oakhurst staff that John Doe must have a chaperone when using the re- stroom. CSD staff made no further report to DFCS about John. In mid-December, Thomas met with Fowler and other CSD staff. 10 Thomas again asked whether John Doe would be removed from Jane Doe’s classroom or disciplined. Thomas also requested that CSD transfer Jane and her sister to a different school. Oakhurst administrators agreed to move Jane to a different classroom with a private restroom. After the meeting, Jane resumed attending clas- ses at Oakhurst while the request to transfer schools remained pending. 10 The parties dispute how this meeting was scheduled. Thomas testified that she called Fowler after a CSD social worker left the DFCS notice on her door. Again unable to reach Fowler, Thomas notified Oakhurst that she would con- tact the media if Fowler failed to return her call. Thomas says that only then did Fowler call her back and offer to meet. In contrast, Fowler testified that she did not receive any messages that Thomas was trying to call her. Because we view the evidence in the light most favorable to Thomas, we take her ac- count as true. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 13 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 13 In late December, a DFCS case worker made an unan- nounced visit to Thomas’s home. Thomas says that during this visit the caseworker interviewed Jane and inspected their home.11 The case worker told her that DFCS had received a report that Thomas was “responsible” for Jane being sexually assaulted in the school restroom because Thomas had failed to “protect” or “super- vis[e]” Jane. Doc. 108 at 136. According to Thomas, the case worker remarked that it was “the school’s responsibility” to protect the child from sexual assault and it was “crazy” that a report had been made against Thomas. Id. at 137–38. The case worker then apologized, announced that she was going “to close this case out,” and advised Thomas to find “a good attorney,” apparently imply- ing that Thomas should sue the person who made the report to DFCS. Id. at 138. After visiting Thomas’s home, the DFCS investigator spoke with a CSD social worker who told her that Jane Doe apparently was going to be transferred to a different school after the holidays. In early January, DFCS closed the case. It notified Thomas that the case against her had been closed as unsubstantiated. There is no evidence that DFCS informed anyone at CSD when it closed its in- vestigation. 11 Thomas says that she “fully cooperated” during the visit. Doc. 108 at 139. But the DFCS investigator reported that Thomas, relying on advice from her attorney, declined to be interviewed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Thomas, we assume that she cooperated. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 14 of 43 14 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 While the transfer request remained pending, Jane Doe con- tinued to attend school at Oakhurst. During this time, she was happy and had no further issues with John Doe. Roaden eventually approved Thomas’s transfer request. In January, Jane and her sister began attending a new school. Later that month, Dr. Julie Medlin conducted an evaluation and forensic interview of Jane Doe. Medlin concluded that Jane’s “statements and nonverbal behavior during the interview were consistent with sexual abuse.” Doc. 120 at 229. There is no indica- tion that Thomas shared Medlin’s conclusions with CSD at the time. In mid-January or February, Roaden informed Dude that his investigation was over and that he concluded that no sexual assault had occurred. But Roaden, who later passed away, never prepared a report of his investigation or summarized his conclusions. Nor did Roaden communicate his findings to Fowler. After the investi- gation was complete, CSD took no corrective action in response to the reported sexual assault incident. Nevertheless, Fowler released a “safety update” to the Oak- hurst community in early February. The update said that there had been an alleged incident in which “one student assaulted another student in the restroom.” Doc. 110 at 294. Although Fowler did not know the outcome of Roaden’s or DFCS’s investigation, she re- ported that “a thorough investigation involving Oakhurst adminis- trators, central office staff, law enforcement, and social services USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 15 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 15 agencies led us to confidently determine that the allegation was un- founded.” Id. The following summer, Thomas, through her attorney, filed a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) on behalf of Jane Doe. She alleged that CSD had subjected Jane to sex discrimination “when it failed to provide an adequate response to [Thomas’s] report that [her daughter] had been sexually assaulted in the girls’ bathroom . . . by a male ele- mentary student.” Doc. 168 at 437. Thomas also asserted that CSD retaliated against her “for reporting the sexual assault by identify- ing [her] as the ‘responsible party’ in [its] referral of the sexual har- assment incident to” DFCS. Id. OCR investigated the complaint. During its investigation, it reviewed documents and interviewed Thomas, her attorney, and CSD officials and employees. It could not interview Roaden, who had died by then. OCR ultimately determined that CSD failed to provide a “prompt and equitable response” to Thomas’s report of the sexual assault. Id. at 448. It found that CSD “immediately started to re- spond” to Thomas’s report “by asking staff to memorialize [Thomas’s] Report in written statement and interviewing the Teacher and the Paraprofessional.” Id. But it determined that CSD “took no further steps to determine what occurred.” Id. It acknowl- edged that CSD initially deferred to the Decatur Police Depart- ment’s school resource officer and DFCS to investigate. OCR faulted CSD for not resuming its investigation once the school USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 16 of 43 16 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 resource officer “indicated there would be no further criminal pro- cessing due to the age of the children” and for failing to “ascertain anything about DFCS’s findings concerning the alleged incident.” Id. OCR also faulted CSD for failing to “communicate[] to the par- ties the outcome of any investigation.” Id. OCR acknowledged that CSD “did provide some interim measures” to Jane Doe by reassign- ing her to a different classroom and later a different school. Id. But it found that because CSD failed to “assess whether there was any need” for any measures beyond those that Thomas requested, it had violated federal regulations. Id. OCR determined that CSD’s inadequate response violated Department of Education regulations that barred sex discrimination. OCR concluded, however, that CSD did not retaliate against Thomas by making the DFCS referral. It explained that CSD had made DFCS referrals for both Jane Doe and John Doe and that “both referrals stated that the individual who allegedly touched [Jane Doe] was a student.” Id. at 449. OCR found that any parent- related information that CSD included in the referral was merely “consistent with the information requested on the form.” Id. OCR thus concluded that “the DFCS referral was not an adverse action” against Thomas and there was insufficient evidence to find that CSD retaliated against her. Id. CSD agreed to a “Resolution Agreement” with OCR to re- solve OCR’s findings about CSD’s inadequate investigation. CSD agreed to “develop a process to ensure it responds to complaints alleging Title IX violations, including matters which the District USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 17 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 17 refers to another person or entity, such as [a school resource of- ficer] or DFCS.” Id. It also agreed to inform its Title IX Coordinator about all sex discrimination complaints. 12 B. Procedural Background Thomas eventually sued CSD on Jane Doe’s behalf. 13 She brought hostile learning environment claims under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–88, and race discrimination claims under Ti- tle VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. She alleged that CSD acted with deliberate indifference by inadequately inves- tigating the reported sexual assault. She also alleged that after the sexual assault, Jane, who is Black and has a Black single mother, was treated less favorably than John Doe, who is also Black but is adopted and has a White father. And she alleged that CSD inten- tionally discriminated against Jane based on race by failing to re- spond adequately to the reported sexual assault on her. 12 OCR notified Thomas that she could appeal its conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support her retaliation claim. It does not appear that she did. 13 Thomas’s first amended complaint included additional claims that are not at issue on appeal. She brought equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CSD, Dude, and Fowler. The district court dismissed all the § 1983 claims except those against Dude and Fowler in their individual capacities. The court later granted summary judgment on the remaining § 1983 claims. Thomas also asserted that CSD was liable under Title IX because it retaliated against her for reporting the sexual assault. The district court similarly dis- missed this claim. Because Thomas does not challenge on appeal the district court’s disposition of these claims, we do not address them. United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 18 of 43 18 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 After the parties completed discovery, CSD moved for sum- mary judgment. CSD argued that even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Thomas, no reasonable jury could find that CSD violated Title IX or Title VI in investigating her report. To support its position, CSD submitted evidence including depositions of Thomas and CSD staff, as well as documentary evidence. Thomas opposed CSD’s motion, arguing that a reasonable jury could find that CSD violated both Title IX and Title VI. Thomas pointed to OCR’s report finding that CSD violated Ti- tle IX regulations by failing to respond adequately to Thomas’s re- port. She also relied on the expert opinion of Tom Rawlings, a for- mer DFCS director. He opined that CSD staff failed to take the steps that a reasonable person would take to respond to a report of child sexual assault. The district court granted CSD’s summary judgment mo- tion. On Thomas’s Title IX claim arising out of CSD’s investigation of the sexual assault report, the court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether CSD acted with delib- erate indifference in its response to the report. The court explained that the undisputed evidence showed that CSD took the following steps in response to Thomas’s report: [O]n the same day that Thomas reported the Incident to Durham and Deming: (1) Durham and Deming notified Fowler about the report of the Incident; (2) Fowler informed Roaden of the allegations; (3) [the school resource officer] and the CSD social workers were contacted to report the Incident; USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 19 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 19 (4) [the school resource officer] collected statements from Oakhurst personnel; (5) Fowler interviewed Jane Doe’s teacher and paraprofessional to determine when the assault could have occurred and if they no- ticed any unusual behavior from either Jane or John Doe; (6) Fowler instructed them to ensure that both Jane Doe and John Doe were supervised when going to the bathroom; (7) Fowler discussed with the CSD social workers what steps should be taken with re- spect to John Doe; (8) the CSD school social workers filed reports to refer the matter, which involved an al- legation of sexual abuse, to DFCS to secure support and services for both students; (9) CSD staff encour- aged Thomas to take Jane Doe to the hospital for an evaluation; and (10) Roaden conducted interviews of CSD staff after students left for the day. Doc. 187 at 29. The court added that the record contained no evi- dence that Jane and John Doe had any further contact and that Thomas’s request to move Jane Doe to a new school was ap- proved. Based on this evidence, the district court determined that “CSD conducted an immediate investigation into Thomas’s allega- tions and affirmatively took steps to ensure that Jane Doe would be protected from any contact by John Doe.” Id. at 30. It concluded that any defects in CSD’s investigation did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. In the court’s view, any factual dispute about whether CSD responded appropriately to the sexual assault report was immaterial to the deliberate indifference determination. USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 20 of 43 20 Opinion of the Court 23-13467 The district court rejected Thomas’s argument that OCR’s conclusion that CSD failed to comply with Title IX created a genu- ine issue of material fact on whether CSD acted with deliberate in- difference. The court explained that Thomas failed to cite any cases in which a school district was found to be deliberately indifferent based on the findings of an OCR investigation. The court declined to give deference to OCR’s decision. It explained that the undis- puted evidence showed that CSD conducted an immediate investi- gation, and its investigation determined a sexual assault did not oc- cur. Thomas therefore failed to adduce evidence “by which a rea- sonable jury could find that CSD acted with deliberate indifference in response to any known acts of discrimination or harassment with respect to Jane Doe.” Id. at 35–36. Because Thomas’s failure to establish deliberate indifference was dispositive of the Title IX claim, the court did not address the claim’s remaining elements. The district court then addressed Thomas’s Title VI claim based on her allegation that “Jane Doe was treated differently than John Doe because she had a Black parent rather than a White par- ent.” Id. at 39. It concluded that CSD was entitled to summary judg- ment on this claim, too, because Thomas failed to present evidence that CSD acted with deliberate indifference in responding to Jane Doe’s reported sexual assault. The district court gave an alternative reason for rejecting the Title VI claim. Assuming that Thomas need not come forward with evidence of deliberate indifference because her claim arose out of actions directed at her instead of deliberate indifference to USCA11 Case: 23-13467 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 Page: 21 of 43 23-13467 Opinion of the Court 21 student-on-student harassment, the court concluded that CSD was entitled to summary judgment nonetheless. Id. Viewing the evi- dence in the light most favorable to Thomas, the district court con- cluded that John Doe was not a similarly situated comparator to Jane Doe and that John Doe’s father was treated similarly to Thomas. In addition, the district court concluded that Thomas failed to adduce sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a gen- uine issue of material fact as to discriminatory intent or impact. Thomas filed this timely appeal challenging the district court’s entry of summary judgment in CSD’s favor on her Title IX sex discrimination and Title VI