UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________

No. 19-3275 __________ JOHN J. HALL; JEANETTE A. HALL, as administrators and personal representatives of the Estate of Karlie A. Hall, and in their own right as decedent's heirs-at-law, Appellants

v.

MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY; SARA WIBERG, individually and as an employee of Millersville University; ACACIA NATIONAL FRATERNITY; ACACIA FRATERNITY CHAPTER NUMBER 84; COLIN HERBINE, individually and as an agent of Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84; JACK MILITO, individually and as an agent of Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84; NICHOLAS HENCH, individually and as an agent of Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84; SEAN EBERT, individually and as an agent of Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84; NIGALE QUILES, individually and as an agent of Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84; JOHN DOES #1-5, individually and as an agents of Acacia Fraternity Chapter No. 84 __________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(District Court Civil No. 5-17-cv-00220) District Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith

Argued October 14, 2021

BEFORE: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 11, 2022)

Brian D. Kent M. Stewart Ryan Laffey Bucci & Kent 1100 Ludlow Street, Suite 301 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Counsel for Appellants James P. Davy [Argued] P.O. Box 15216 Philadelphia, PA 19125

Counsel for Appellant Jeanette A. Hall Josh Shapiro, Attorney General Claudia M. Tesoro [Argued] Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania 1600 Arch Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103

2 Kevin R. Bradford Stephen R. Kovatis Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania 21 South 12th Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107

Counsel for Appellees Margaret H. Zhang Women's Law Project 125 South 9th Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Counsel for Amicus Appellants

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT __________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

John and Jeanette Hall (“the Halls”) sued Millersville University (“Millersville”) under Title IX after their daughter, Karlie Hall, was murdered in her dorm room by her boyfriend, Gregorio Orrostieta. Despite finding genuine issues of material fact for each element of the Halls’ Title IX claim, the District Court granted summary judgment in Millersville’s favor, holding that Millersville lacked notice it could face liability

3 under Title IX for the actions of a non-student guest. The Halls appeal, and this Court must now consider whether Millersville had adequate notice it could be liable under Title IX for its deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment perpetrated by a non-student guest. We hold Millersville had such notice.

Title IX’s plain terms notify federal funding recipients that they may face monetary liability for intentional violations of the statute. Moreover, it is an intentional violation of Title IX’s terms for a funding recipient to act with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment where the recipient exercises substantial control over the context in which the harassment occurs and the harasser, even if they are a third party. Given this framework, we conclude the text of Title IX provides Millersville and other federal funding recipients with adequate notice. We must therefore reverse and remand. Nevertheless, because we agree with the District Court that genuine issues of material fact exist for each element of the Halls’ Title IX claim, we will affirm the District Court’s order to the extent it holds these factua