Cases & Developments

Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at East Stroudsburg University, brought Title IX, §1983, and tort claims against the University and multiple officials related to an alleged March 30, 2018, sexual assault in her dorm by a resident assistant (RA), and their tumultuous relationship dating back to fall of 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims as time-barred under the Pennsylvania general personal injury statute of limitations. The court found that plaintiff’s claims pertaining to events occurring on or after March 30, 2018, were timely under a state tolling provision for civil actions arising from sexual abuse when the action is brought by an individual under the age of 24. The court found that it lacked adequate information to determine the applicability of sovereign immunity, absent sufficient factual allegations about the scope of the RA’s employment and “whether any actions or inactions alleged … were within the scope of those duties,” and thus, allowed plaintiff’s tort claims to proceed, with leave for defendants to re-raise the defense at a later stage of the case.  

Decision & Judgment annulling the determination of the University Appeals Committee. Petitioner, a student at Stony Brook University, sought review of the University’s administrative determination after a University appeals committee affirmed a finding that he was responsible for engaging in sexual conduct with another student without her affirmative consent. In annulling the determination, the court noted that the complainant alleged that she had consented, but that she was too intoxicated at the time to be able to make that decision. It then held that the Appeals Committee’s determination that petitioner had not obtained affirmative consent before engaging in the sexual conduct was not supported by substantial evidence. The court, accordingly, vacated the penalties imposed and directed that references to the finding be expunged from petitioner’s academic record.  

Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student at Dickinson College, brought Title IX and contract claims against the College after a six-month investigation found that a fellow student who had kissed and grabbed her without consent was responsible for sexual misconduct. The respondent was placed on conduct probation and assigned mandatory education on the meaning of consent. In granting summary judgment to the College on her deliberate indifference claim, the court held that neither extensions of the investigation beyond the normal 60-days nor a no-contact directive that did not remove the respondent from all activities in which plaintiff participated were clearly unreasonable. In granting summary judgment on her contract claim, the court noted that plaintiff had received notice that the College’s Title IX policy provided that an investigation could be extended for good cause and held that because plaintiff was likely to have seen the respondent on campus even if the investigation had not been delayed she failed to demonstrate that she suffered damages as a result of the alleged contractual breach.   

Memorandum of Decision granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Central Connecticut State University, brought a Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University after she was sexually assaulted in October 2020 in a dormitory suite at a party that violated the University’s COVID-19 restrictions, alcohol policy, and “quiet hours” policy. In granting the University’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege that the University had actual knowledge of the assault or risk of assault despite general statistics on the prevalence of sexual assaults. It granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add allegations related to the University’s response to her report of the assault.   

Opinion reversing summary judgment and remanding. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Arizona, brought a Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University after she was physically assaulted by her boyfriend, who was on a football scholarship at the University, in his private, off-campus residence. The privilege of living off-campus required permission from his coaches and was granted on the condition of good behavior. Plaintiff alleged that University officials knew of prior incidents in which he had assaulted two other women on campus but that they did not disclose all of the relevant information concerning the assaults to the appropriate Athletics officials and coaches. In reversing summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that (1) the University had “substantial control” over the “context” in which her assault took place, (2) officials had actual knowledge of the risk based on the prior incidents, and (3) not communicating all of the information about the previous assaults to the Athletic Director was clearly unreasonable.