By Courtney L. Flowers, Ph.D.
On April 1, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted 15 plaintiffs a motion to seek compensatory damages and costs against Baylor University for violating their Title IX rights. Specifically, each Jane Doe claimed the institution failed to provide them essential procedural protection and equitable investigation in reporting sexual assault by a fellow Baylor student.
The four-year old case focuses on the private, christian university’s propensity to violate Title IX in its handling of sexual complaints and misconduct. For example, the lawsuit reports that although there were several rape allegations on campus between 2008 and 2011, Baylor did not report a single sexual assault case during this time (Adams, 2018).
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” of any person in an educational program or activity receiving federal funding which offers a path to legal relief for victims of sexual abuse and harassment at educational institutions. According to the CRS (2019) “Though Title IX makes no explicit reference to sexual abuse or harassment, the Supreme Court has held that a school district can violate the statute, and be held liable for damages, based on a deliberately indifferent response to a teacher’s sexual abuse or harassment of a student”.
Also, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief and punitive damages. However, Baylor has faced scrutiny due to their indifference towards sexual assault cases. In 2016, Pepper Hamilton LLP conducted an external and independent review of Baylor’s Title IX practices. The firm found the university fundamentally failed to implement Title IX and recommended the university “consider the importance of forthright communication to the effective implementation of Title IX.” (Pepper Hamilton LLP, 2016).
The institution’s failure to enforce Title IX led to the dismissal of football coach Art Briles and resignation of the university president Kenneth Starr (Barron, 2020).
Background
Fifteen former Baylor University students, designated in the lawsuit as Jane Doe, alleged the university responded in deliberate indifference when they requested help due to a sexual assault or misconduct by a fellow Baylor student.
First, the plaintiffs asserted “port-reporting” alleging Baylor’s discriminatory response to their sexual assault claims were aligned to their gender. Secondly, the Plaintiffs asserted a claim of “heightened risk” alleging Baylor has an institutionalized practice of using discriminatory behavior in handling sexual assault reports.
As such, the plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to refrain from using discriminatory practices which condone a hostile, sexual harassment environment, hence requesting that the institution cease in favoring students who were charged with sexual assault or misconduct.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought (1) specific injunctive relief and (2) Title IX policy relief, thus posing two questions for the Court. First, does standing exist for an injunction under Title IX when a plaintiff has graduated or otherwise left an educational institution, but may seek to return? Second, if so, what standard applies to the plaintiff’s likelihood of return?
In this case the plaintiffs held the burden of proving to the Court that there was threat of repeated injury.
In response, Baylor moved to dismiss the injunctive relief claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) citing lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Specific Injunctive Relief
Four plaintiffs requested specific injunctive relief to remove disciplinary notations from their transcripts. Baylor did not oppose adding this claim, therefore the court granted the plaintiff’s motion.
In addition, two plaintiffs requested an amendment to the claim to be able to re-take classes and one plaintiff sought reinstatement of a scholarship and readmission to an academic program. Accordingly, Baylor moved to dismiss these claims for specific injunctive relief citing a two-year statute of limitations for Title IX claims.
Yet, the court found these specific injunctive relief amendments contemplated the plaintiffs return to Baylor and therefore the “Title IX Policy Relief” and the “Prospective Specific Injunctive Relief” claims were addressed together.
Title IX Policy Relief and Prospective Specific Injunctive Relief
The defendants rendered an injunction moot citing each plaintiff had either graduated or had withdrawn from the university. Henceforth, since none of the plaintiffs were current students at Baylor, they had no standing to sue the institution based on their current Title IX policies.
According to Barron (2020) thirteen of the women in the case had graduated from the school and two transferred. Although, the plaintiffs reported several of the Jane Does would return to Baylor if the court granted an injunctive relief compelling compliance with Title IX, though, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked in providing direct evidence that they would return to the university.
Further, the plaintiffs argued to amend their claim to add an additional Jane Doe who was currently enrolled at Baylor and still experiencing Title IX discrimination. The cvourt denied this request recounting this amendment would further delay the trial which had already been pending for over four years.
Thus, Baylor was granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for prospective injunctive relief. Conversely, the plaintiffs were able to retain their claim for specific injunctive relief.
Punitive Damages
The defendant also moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages citing it is not available under Title IX as a matter of law. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a defendant can move to dismiss a claim on the ground that the plaintiff’s allegations do not entitle them to relief.
The plaintiffs asked the court to allow a jury to decide whether punitive damages can be awarded in intentional Title IX actions. However, the Court found Title IX does not allow punitive damages in a private right of action under that statute therefore granting Baylor’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.
Conclusion
The court granted Baylor’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief and punitive damages, therefore, dismissing the plaintiff’s request for Title IX policy relief and prospective specific injunctive relief to re-take classes, reinstate a scholarship, or to be re-admitted to a degree program.
Yet, the plaintiffs were able to retain their claims for damages, costs, fees, statutory interest and specific injunctive relief to remove disciplinary notations or make other revisions to existing academic records.
The court also granted the plaintiff’s leave to add a claim for specific injunctive relief although they denied the leave to amend the complaint to add an additional Jane Doe to the claim.
Baylor was given to the end of April to produce information sought by the plaintiffs in the pre-trial (Barron, 2020).
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.
References
Adams, S. (2018, January 27). Fifteen Jane Doe joins the lawsuit against Baylor University. retrieved May 1,2020 from, https://www.kcentv.com/article/sports/ncaaf/baylor-fallout/fifteenth-jane-doe-joins-lawsuit-against-baylor-university/500-512052524
Barron, D. (2020, April 2). Judge: Plaintiffs in Baylor Title IX lawsuit can’t seek punitive damages. Retrieved April 29, 2020 from, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/texas-sports-nation/college/article/Judge-Defendants-Baylor-Title-IX-lawsuit-punitive-15175318.php
Congressional Research Services (2019, April 12). Title IX and Sexual Harassment: Private Rights of Action, Administrative Enforcement, and Proposed Regulations. Retrieved April 29, 2020 from, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45685.pdf
Doe v. Baylor Univ., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56953
Erikson, P. (2016, June15). 3 Women file Title IX suit claiming Baylor was indifferent to sexual assaults. Retrieved April 29, 2020 from, https://www.wacotrib.com/news/higher_education/women-file-title-ix-suit-claiming-baylor-was-indifferent-to/article_fea74099-215d-5228-8c20-199ede170f62.html
Pepper Hamilton LLP (2016, May 26). Pepper Hamilton recommendations for Baylor. Retrieved April 29, 2020 from, https://www.wacotrib.com/pepper-hamilton-recommendations-for-baylor/pdf_b00d9dde-2360-11e6-a3f8-b3ee7d813516.html
