By Courtney L. Flowers, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sport Management at Texas Southern University, and Nana K. Asare J.D., M.B.A., M.S., Assistant Professor of Health and Kinesiology and Sport Management at Texas Southern University
The United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama Northeastern Division denied the University of Alabama-Huntsville’s (UAH) motion for summary judgment in a Title IX lawsuit. The case will now proceed to trial court.
Jane Doe, a student at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) sued the university citing she was discriminated against because of her sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
In addition, the Plaintiff alleged 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.
Facts
Jane Doe reported to UAH that she was sexually assaulted by Lasse Uusivirta, a UAH hockey player, in a UAH dorm room. The Plaintiff reported the sexual assault to the university and was informed that she could pursue criminal charges or bring charges against the hockey player under UAH’s Student Conduct Code.
On February 11, 2013, by a preponderance of the evidence, the UAH’s Student Conduct Board found the student-athlete guilty of sexual violence and violation of the law. Therefore, they recommended that Uusivirta be expelled from the university.
Dr. Wren UAH’s Title IX appeal officer for sexual misconduct cases suspended the student-athlete from UAH for two semesters but delayed the suspension until the summer semester. This suspension went against the Student Conduct Code Board recommendation to have the student-athlete expelled from the university. The Board recommended expulsion stating it “must be made for the safety of all students at UAH”.
In the lawsuit, Jane Doe claims that UAH violated Title IX because the institution acted in deliberate indifference in its handling of her sexual assault case. However, the Defendants asked the Court to enter a judgment in its favor.
Standard of Review: In reviewing the University of Alabama-Huntsville’s (UAH) motion for summary judgment, the district court relied upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as the applicable standard of review. Specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) states: “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (1) (A) requires the party opposing the summary judgment (Jane Doe) to demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment. Furthermore, according to the rule: a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must cite “to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) states that: “The court should consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.”
Finally, in applying its standard of review the court also cited another case from the 11th Circuit. In Asalde v. First Class Parking Sys. LLC, 898 F.3d 1136, 1138 (11th Cir. 2018) the court held that: “When considering a summary judgment motion, a district court must view the evidence in the record and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Here, the court used its discretion to deny UAH motion for summary judgment since the court could reasonably infer that based on preponderance of the evidence there were some genuine disputes as to material facts.
Title IX Standard: Doe v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. qualifies as a title IX case since Jane Doe was a student at UAH when she was sexually assaulted by Lasse Uusivirta who at the time was on disciplinary probation for alcohol abuse and hazing violations.
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) which specifically addresses Title IX states: “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
The standard for Title IX liability in cases involving student-on-student harassment is clear. This is a student-on-student Title IX action. “Student-on-student sexual harassment rises to the level of actionable Title IX discrimination only if the harassment is ‘sufficiently severe.'” Hill v. Cundiff, 797 F.3d 948, 968 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 650). Here, the court likely agreed that sexual assault on a university campus qualifies as “sufficiently severe”.
In a student-on-student Title IX action, a plaintiff “must establish not only that the school district was deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment, but also that the known harassment was ‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denie[d] its victims the equal access to education that Title IX is designed to protect.'” Hill, 797 F.3d at 968-69 (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 651-52). Likewise, here, the burden was on Jane Doe to establish that UAH was deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment and that act of sexual assault against her has denied her rights under Title IX.
Discussion
In 2015, Jane Doe sued the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Brent Wren, Sgt John Beswick, and Regina Hyatt. The Court entered a report and recommendation concerning the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In this report, Judge Davis recommended that the Court grant the defendants’ motion and dismiss this action with prejudice.
Jane Doe lodged three specific objections to Judge Davis’s report, (1) report omits certain alleged facts relevant to her Title IX (2) failure to sufficiently allege that UAH acted with deliberate indifference to known sexual and (3) Jane Doe requested the Court to allow discovery before dismissing with prejudice her § 1983 claims.
On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice Jane Doe’s § 1983 claims against UAH citing the original complaint contains no § 1983 individual capacity claim against Dr. Wren, Sergeant Beswick, and Dr. Hyatt.
Further, the Plaintiff’s Title IX claim against UAH and § 1983 official capacity claims for injunctive relief against Dr. Wren, Sergeant Beswick, and Dr. Hyatt request was guaranteed to proceed.
Conclusion
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment citing the facts could provide jurors the ability to conclude that UAH protected a male student and acted in deliberate indifference to the sexual assault of a female student.
In addition, the Court reported UAH administrators designed a sanction which benefited the assailant and a jury must now decide if the sanction was sufficient to prevent future attacks by students.
This case will now proceed to trial court.
Courtney L. Flowers, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Texas Southern University. Her research examines the racial and gendered barriers that embody Title IX policies and practices in the interscholastic and intercollegiate athletic systems.
Nana K. Asare J.D., M.B.A., M.S. is an Assistant Professor of Health and Kinesiology and Sport Management and is a lecturer and researcher in the areas of Sport Law, Ethics and Corruption in Sport, Sport Agency and Negotiations, Athletes and Political Activism as well as International Sport and Sports Tourism.
References
Doe v. The University of Alabama in Huntsville et al, No. 5:2014cv02029 – Document 20 (N.D. Ala. 2016)
Doe v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43864
Doe v. The University of Alabama in Huntsville et al, No. 5:2014cv02029 – Document 33 (N.D. Ala. 2017)
