A federal judge from the Eastern District of California has granted a defendant university’s motion for summary judgment in a case in which it was sued for violations of Title IX after a female student athlete was allegedly sexually assaulted by male student athletes.
The plaintiff’s complaint centered on the University of The Pacific’s policy after an investigation which included suspending the defendants and “precluding all post-suspension contact with plaintiff as well as limiting interaction generally between the men’s and women’s basketball teams.”
The court found that “the policy was not directed at plaintiff, and she has no evidence of how the policy affected her, if at all. Rather, the policy was of limited duration, had minimal impact on any student, and applied equally to both teams.”
The plaintiff, referred to as Jane Doe, was sexually assaulted on May 10, 2008. According to Doe, a men’s basketball player offered her a ride to another party at campus housing. She claimed, however, that the player did not take her to another party, but instead to his campus apartment. Another men’s basketball team member rode with the pair to the apartment. Once they arrived at the apartment, Doe claimed that they took off her clothes. About this time, another player arrived. Shortly thereafter, she was allegedly assaulted.
While the plaintiff did not report the incident to the authorities, she did tell a friend, who informed the assistant basketball coach. From there, the head coach was informed, then the athletic director and finally the vice president of student affairs.
The university encouraged Doe to press criminal charges, but she declined. The university initiated its own independent judicial process. The investigation revealed that the plaintiff “admitted she did not recall specifically whether she said the word ‘no’ at any point during the sexual conduct that occurred” between her and the male student athletes. At the same time, the plaintiff “claimed that she did not consent to all of this sexual conduct. In total, this key evidence caused the Board to doubt whether all of the sexual activity that occurred was non-consensual.”
Nevertheless, suspensions were handed out and artificial barriers were instituted between the teams.
The plaintiff claimed in her lawsuit that Pacific violated “Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, because it (1) did not prevent the assault (first claim for relief); (2) demonstrated ‘deliberate indifference’ to sexual harassment in failing to respond appropriately to her complaint (second claim for relief); and (3) retaliated against plaintiff by instituting a policy limiting unsupervised social interaction between the men’s and women’s basketball teams (third claim for relief).”
The defendant University countered in a motion for summary judgment that each of the plaintiff’s claims failed under Title IX’s stringent standards: “The University took steps to generally ensure the safety of its students, and plaintiff cannot establish the University’s liability based on an alleged assault on another former female student which occurred a month prior to the plaintiff’s assault. Further, the University conducted a fair and impartial judicial hearing, pursuant to University procedures, and Title IX does not mandate a particular remedy as urged by the plaintiff; the court cannot second-guess the severity of the punishment imposed by the University on the plaintiff’s assailants. Finally, the defendant contends the University’s decision to restrict the basketball players’ unsupervised interactions does not constitute a disadvantageous retaliatory action sufficient to support a Title IX claim since the decision was designed to alleviate the rising tension among the players and to protect plaintiff from the wrath of players who did not believe her.”
Regarding the first claim, the court found that the plaintiff “failed to offer any evidence to demonstrate that the University acted negligently in this matter. To the contrary, their actions prior to and in response to plaintiff’s assault were ‘clearly not unreasonable’ and thus, liability cannot attach.”
Turning to the second claim, the court pointed to “undisputed facts that demonstrate the reasonableness of defendant’s decision. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot establish a violation of Title IX on this basis.”
Regarding the final claim, the court held that “the temporary policy barring unsupervised social contact between the two teams was not directed specifically at the plaintiff; indeed, the restriction applied equally to all members of both teams. The plaintiff remained free to attend all her classes, athletic events and University-sponsored activities. She was free to socialize with her teammates and other members of the University community as she wished. She would have been free to socialize with the men’s basketball team in supervised settings. Thus, there is no evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact that the policy seriously impaired her educational experience at the University.”
Jane Doe v. University of The Pacific; E.D. Calif.; NO. CIV. S-09-764 FCD/KJN, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130099; 12/8/10
Attorneys or record: (for plaintiff) Ivo Labar, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kerr and Wagstaffe, San Francisco, CA; Jacqueline Scott Corley, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, San Francisco, CA; John Christopher Clune, Victim Justice Initiative, PC, Denver, CO. (for defendant) Janine S. Simerly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jennifer Rose Cotner, Miller Law Group, San Francisco, CA.
