By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Professor, Sport Management, Drexel University
In John Doe v. University of Notre Dame du Lac and Jane Roe,filed on October 30, 2015, an anonymous African-American male student accused a white female administrator and academic coach of coercing him into engaging in a sexual relationship with the woman’s daughter and facilitating sexual encounters between her daughter and members of the football and basketball teams. In an October 16th letter regarding the student’s allegations, Karrah Miller, who serves as the director for the Office of Institutional Equity and Title IX coordinator at Notre Dame, reported that based on an internal case analysis, “The University has concluded that [Academic Coach’s] behavior violated the University’s values and the University’s Sexual and Discrimination Harassment Policy”. The letter went on to report that the offending employee was subsequently fired but there were no grounds to arrive at a conclusion that her daughter had violated any University policy.
According to the complaint, John Doe was a first year student at the University who sought academic support and guidance from Roe in the spring of 2015. The academic counselor is described as having “initiated, directed, and coordinated a sexually and racially motivated relationship” with the plaintiff that ultimately undermined his interests as a student, affected his experience on campus, and made him feel trapped and threatened.
Encouraging the young man to have sex with her daughter, the academic counselor is accused of actively facilitating encounters between the two; inquiring after Doe’s sexual facility and performance; requesting intimate details regarding his sex life, and offering suggestive commentaries based on racial stereotypes about the sexual prowess of African-American men. Roe is alleged to have supported the relationship between her daughter and Doe by allowing him to live in their home, providing transportation and accommodations when they traveled, and inciting fear in him as he attempted to break off the arrangement.
Violative of Titles VI and IX, Doe argues that the treatment he was subjected to by the academic coach amounted to racial and sexual discrimination through the creation of a hostile environment wherein he experienced harassment that has harmed him in a way that affected his present circumstances and potentially his future existence. Citing severe emotional stress caused either intentionally or recklessly by the extreme and outrageous conduct of the academic coach that exceeded the bounds of decent society, Doe asserts that the University is “vicariously liable” for the conduct of its employee under a tort of outrage. The plaintiff further posits that the University’s failure to properly monitor staff denied Doe of the opportunity to access opportunities and an educational environment available to similarly situated students, thus constituting negligence and breach of contract. The plaintiffs prayer for relief rests with compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and witness fees as appropriate and allowed, all costs associated with the lawsuit, and a grant of injunctive relief to protect the plaintiff’s academic and economic welfare as a student at Notre Dame as well as unlock materials accrued in the investigation of the matter by the University for an independent investigation of compliance with Title VI and Title IX.
After the lawsuit was filed, all parties issued follow up statements offering further detail. A spokesperson for the academic coach’s family, Caitlin Rourke stated, “There are two sides to every breakup and that this is being played out in the media is incredibly painful to us.” Claims regarding athletes were immediately dismissed as unfounded by Notre Dame’s vice president of public affairs and communications, Paul Browne. In a statement issued shortly after the lawsuit was originally filed, Browne asserted that the inclusion of athletes in the lawsuit was “nothing more than a cynical attempt to attract publicity”. Attorneys for Doe at Anderson, Agostino & Keller in South Bend countered with the release of a document purportedly prepared by a University attorney that “…shows that someone acting on behalf of the University of Notre Dame was aware of the factual basis for the allegations, including a reference to a Notre Dame Football player living at the academic coach’s house for a couple of weeks, and who had also ‘dated’ the academic coach’s daughter”.
Two weeks before the lawsuit was filed, a demand for relief had been sought from the University. According to Doe’s attorneys, “The failure to respond and react reflects a double standard by some at the university, as the objectification would not have been tolerated under any other set of circumstances. The student fell prey to a manipulative and predatory scheme.”
References
John Doe v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac and Jane Roe. (2015, October 30). Cause No.7100-1510-CT-000390. Retrieved from http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/20151030160839252+(1).pdf
Miller, K. (2015, October 16). Letter to [Male Student]. Retrieved from http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/11/04/NDletter.pdf
Observer Staff Report. (2015, November 6). Parties named in University lawsuit issue additional statements. The Observer. Retrieved from http://ndsmcobserver.com/2015/11/parties-named-university-lawsuit-issue-additional-statements/
Shields, M. (2015, November 4). Bizarre forced-sex scandal at Notre Dame. Courthouse News Service. Retrieved from http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/11/04/bizarre-forced-sex-scandal-at-notre-dame.htm
