A district judge from the Northern District of Alabama has disagreed with the finding of a magistrate judge and will allow the Title IX claim of a University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) student, who was allegedly raped by a UAH hockey player, to continue.
The court, however, did agree with the magistrate judge’s other recommendation that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against UAH and the individual defendants in their official capacities be dismissed with prejudice.
The litigation centered on a public university’s investigation into a student’s claims that a UAH hockey player sexually assaulted her in a university dorm. Plaintiff Jane Doe alleged that the university discriminated against her because of her sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. She also alleged that UAH, Associate Provost and NCAA Representative Brent Wren, UAH Police Sergeant John Beswisk, and Dean of Students Regina Young Hyatt violated her rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doe sought relief from the individual defendants under § 1983.
After the defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the district judge grant the defendants’ motion and dismiss this action with prejudice. Not surprisingly, Doe appealed the ruling, leading to the instant opinion.
The district court reviewed the three specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report. First, Doe argued that the report omits certain alleged facts relevant to her Title IX claim. Second, she objected to Judge Davis’s conclusion that she has failed to sufficiently allege that UAH acted with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment. Third, Doe asked the court to allow discovery before dismissing with prejudice her § 1983 claims.
The district judge agreed with the plaintiff on the first point, highlighting the many “alleged facts that give rise to an inference that UAH acted with deliberate indifference.” The court also noted that there were additional facts, raised on appeal that had added to an amended complaint. “If Ms. Doe receives an opportunity to amend her complaint, these allegations would shore up Ms. Doe’s already adequately pleaded Title IX claim,” the district judge wrote.
As for the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against UAH, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s conclusion that UAH was shielded by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides immunity in such cases, absent any exceptions. The court reached a similar conclusion as to the plaintiff’s § 1983 official capacity claims against the individual defendants.
Jane Doe v. The University of Alabama in Huntsville et al.; N.D. Ala.; Case No.: 5:14-cv-02029-HGD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42991; 3/31/16
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Mary-Ellen Bates, LEAD ATTORNEY, BATES HETZEL PC, Birmingham, AL. (for defendants) John O Cates, LEAD ATTORNEY, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SYSTEM IN HUNTSVILLE, Huntsville, AL; Robert W Rieder, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SYSTEM, Huntsville, AL.
