Campus Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault Litigation Roundup

In two recent judicial decisions, courts refused to grant university's motions to dismiss Title IX cases in which the plaintiff alleged that the university did not adequately respond to his or her report of sexual harassment or assault.

• In the first case, a federal court in Illinois allowed a male medical student to continue to litigate his case against Northwestern University, in which he alleges that the university did not adequately respond to his report of sexual harassment by a male professor.  The professor, the plaintiff alleges, made suggestive comments and retaliated against the plaintiff in various ways for refusing his sexual advances. The court agreed that the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint satisfy the legal standard for liability under Title IX, and thus cannot be dismissed without continued litigation.  The plaintiff alleges a sexist double standard in Northwestern's policy of not investigating reports of incidents that were two years old, the time frame that lapsed between the professor's misconduct and the plaintiff's report to the university's sexual harassment office. Because the plaintiff's complaint included an example of a female complainant's case that was investigated even though the harassment was similarly out of date,  it could, if proven, subject Northwestern to liability under Title IX. The court also denied the university's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's retaliation claim, in which he alleged that the university continued to take adverse action against him after and because of his reporting of the professor's harassment.  Yap v. Northwestern Univ., 2015 WL 4692492 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2015).

• Similarly, a federal court in Florida denied Florida State's motion to dismiss the Title IX case filed by  Erica Kinsman, who alleges that the university did not adequately respond to knowledge of her report that quarterback Jameis Winston raped her in 2012.  Though FSU disputes the allegations in the complaint, the judge ruled that it is possible that a jury could find truth in Kinsman's claims that appropriate university officials had actual notice of Kinsman's report by January of 2013, and that they did not initiate an investigation for eleven months, which would satisfy the standard of institutional liability under Title IX.  The judge set a trial date for July of 2016, though it is possible of course that the case could settle before then, or that FSU could file and prevail on a motion for summary judgment after the discovery phase which allows the parties to gather evidence. 

Also, there were developments in three disciplined-student cases worth noting.

• A federal court in Virginia denied Washington and Lee University's motion to dismiss a male student's claim that the university violated Title IX when it expelled him for sexual assault.  The court agreed that the plaintiff's complaint contained sufficient allegations that would, if proven, constitute a violation of Title IX under the "erroneous outcome" framework.  At this early stage of litigation, a plaintiff in an erroneous outcome case must (1) cast doubt on the accuracy of the university's finding against him; and (2) allege specific facts that can establish gender bias as a motive. Here, the plaintiff alleged numerous procedural violations that resulted in evidence favorable to him being excluded from the disciplinary panel's consideration. He also alleged that gender bias could be attributed to the Title IX officer who presented the case against him, as evidenced by her public endorsement of the idea that "sexual assault occurs whenever a woman has consensual sex with a man and regrets it because she had internal reservations that she did not outwardly express."  Because the plaintiff's case "parallels of the situation it describes and the circumstances under which Plaintiff was found responsible for sexual misconduct" and because the Title IX officer wielded "considerable influence" in the proceedings, it is possible, the judge reasoned, for a jury to find evidence of gender bias.  This is a rare outcome in that disciplined-students' Title IX claims do not usually survive the university's motion to dismiss -- usually because of insufficient allegations of gender bias. Doe v. Washington and Lee Univ., 2015 WL 4647996 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2015).

• And, a state court judge in Tennessee reversed a decision by the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga to expel a male student and wrestler Corey Mock for sexual assault.  In that case, a female student reported to the university that Mock had had sex with her while she was unconscious.  A disciplinary panel initially determined that there was not enough evidence to find Mock responsible, but this decision was overturned on an appeal within the university.  The court took issue with the university's ultimate decision, which it interpreted as requiring Mock to prove he had obtained consent rather than requiring the complainant to prove he hadn't. Though the court's decision was based on state administrative law, not Title IX, the outcome is consistent with what is required of universities under Title IX.  Even though a complainant does not have to have overwhelming evidence (only a preponderance) that consent did not occur, it is still the complainant's burden to prove that consent did not occur.  

• A superior court judge in Los Angeles reinstated plaintiff Bryce Dixon to the University of Southern California while his case against the university is pending.  Dixon, a football player, is challenging the university's decision to expel him for sexual assault stemming from a sexual encounter with a female trainer that he claims was preceded by implied consent, though a university disciplinary panel found otherwise.

USC announcement inspires complaint

Someone has challenged the University of Southern California's recently announced plan to provide four-year scholarships to football, and men's and women's basketball players. As Erin noted the other day, the disproportionate benefit to male student-athletes is likely a Title IX violation.
And a properly signed complaint (we don't know by whom at this point) to OCR is challenging the new policy and pointing out other Title IX violations at the school including: less pay for head and assistant coaches of women's sports; fewer women's coaches, fewer opportunities for female student-athletes, inequitable funding of women's sports; inequitable funding of recruiting. 
Differences in funding and salaries and positions do not always equal Title IX violations. If athletic departments can justify the differences and prove they are providing a similar quality of experience to men and women, this is enough. 
That being said, in addition to the likely problems with four-year scholarship distribution, the differential between average salaries between coaches of men's and women's teams at both the head and assistant coach level is startling. 
Head coach average salary:  $647,202 (M) $129,552 (W)
Asst coach average salary: $200,871(M)  $45,629 (W)

We don't know whether OCR will visit the LA campus to investigate. It's possible they will ask USC to do its own study and address the disparities and report back. 
I do believe they will have to explicitly address the scholarship issue and it would be nice if we could see some progress on salary equity. 

What are the Title IX Implications of USC's 4-Year Scholarship Plan?

On Monday, University of Southern California announced that it will offer four-year scholarships to all scholarship athletes in football, men's basketball, and women's basketball.  This modifies the university's existing practice of offering all scholarships on a one-year, renewable basis. 

Multi-year scholarships have only been permissible under NCAA rules since 2012.  The NCAA actually banned them in 1973 as a means to promote competitive equity by leveling the playing field for schools that cannot afford to take that kind of risk.  But concerns for athlete's welfare and education motivated the NCAA's change of heart, and reportedly, USC's as well.  An athlete with a four-year scholarship has "job security" if you will -- they cannot lose their scholarship status as long as they continue to follow team and NCAA rules. An athlete with a renewable scholarship has to worry every year that their coaches will replace them due to poor performance or injury -- leaving them to either figure out how to cover tuition or else drop out of school altogether.

Multi-year scholarships are thus quite beneficial to athletes.  But like any benefit, they must be allocated on a gender-equitable basis in order to comply with Title IX.   

Title IX regulations specifically address athletic financial aid at 34 C.F.R. 106.37(c).  This provision  requires that aggregate dollar amount allocated to athletes of sex be proportionate to the ratio of athletes of each sex -- i.e., if 50% of the athletes are female, they should receive 50% of the overall available athletic financial aid.  Yet this provision is likely unaffected by an inequitable distribution of multi-year scholarships versus one-year renewables. This is because a multi-year scholarship paid out over the term of years does not increase the allocation of athletic financial aid in a given year (one-fourth of a four-year scholarship and a one-year scholarship are the same in dollar amounts).

But elsewhere, at 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c), the Title IX regulations mandate that athletic opportunities receive equal treatment based on sex.  For example, under this provision, it would be unlawful to provide higher quality equipment or facilities to only men's sports. "Tiering" is still permissible -- a school does not need to provide the same benefits to all sports -- but there must be gender equity within the tiers themselves.

In my opinion, a school that provides four-year scholarships to 98 male athletes (85 football scholarships, 13 basketball) and 15 female athletes violates 106.41(c) -- the same way that it would violate Title IX to provide any other perq on this inequitable basis.  If this is hard to understand, imagine that USC provided laundry service to 15 female athletes and 98 male athletes -- a clear violation of equal treatment.  The "job security" aspect of a four-year scholarship relative to a one-year renewable is just another characteristic of how athletes are treated, similar to laundry service. Moreover, because the regulation says that the Department of Education will enforce this provision by considering a number of enumerated factors "among others," it is not relevant that 106.41(c) does not expressly mention multi-year scholarships a factor of equal treatment. 

Finally, it will not be sufficient for USC to justify its policy as only pertaining to revenue-producing sports.  In 1974, Congress considered an amendment to Title IX that would have exempt revenue-producing sports.  But the fact that this amendment failed to pass underscores the law's agnosticism when it comes to revenue.  Neither Congress, the courts nor the Department of Education have ever endorsed a double-standard for revenue and non-revenue sports.

It is good that schools are being responsive to concerns about athlete welfare and education.  But the law requires that they do so on a gender-equitable basis.

Fault admitted in California

Both Occidental College and the University of Southern California have said that they violated the Clery Act by underreporting sexual assault on their respective campuses as well as improperly handling some cases of reported sexual assault.
Occidental--on the advice of an outside consultant, according to school officials--reported a total of 19 incidents over a three-year period rather than reporting incidents per year, as required.
At USC more than a dozen anonymous complaints from 2010 were not reported. 
Clery Act violations incur fines of up to $35,000 per violation. There has not been any official figure provided by the currently shut-down government and it is unclear how these admissions will affect the investigations triggered by student-driven complaints.

Updates on OCR's Investigations into Colleges' Responses to Campus Sexual Assault

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has its hands full with sexual assault complaints. It has opened investigations into the complaints filed earlier by students from Dartmouth College, University of Southern California, University of Colorado Boulder, Swarthmore College, Occidental College, and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.  Here are some updates in each of those cases.  

In the Dartmouth case, OCR has initiated on its own an investigation into possible Title IX violations in the college's sexual harassment grievance procedures, its responses to sexual harassment claims, and its designation of a Title IX coordinator. These claims were not included in the students' earlier-filed complaint, which focused on sexual assault reporting problems as alleged Clery Act violations.

At USC, the OCR will investigate claims that the university failed to investigate and discipline students accused of rape.  One complainant told OCR that campus police refused to consider an act of rape when a male student penetrated her, but did not ejaculate.  Another said that university official told her, by way of explanation for not responding to her allegation of rape, that the university's job was to the educate, not to punish students. 

The student who filed a complaint about CU Boulder alleges that the university failed to adequately respond to sexual assault committed on her, even though her assailant was found guilty of nonconsensual intercourse by a university disciplinary committee.  The assailant was sanctioned to an 8 month suspension, which was not enforced for four weeks during which time he continued to have contact with her.  Meanwhile, the local criminal court had no trouble issuing a restraining order that would prevent the him from returning to campus while she is a student there.  She argues that the university should have been willing to provide at least as much protection to ensure her safety and well-being.

The ongoing Title IX investigation about Swarthmore's failure to adequately respond to sexual assault has already prompted the college to update its policies, it was recently reported. Swarthmore responded to the initial filing of the complaint last May by hiring a private company to conduct an independent review of its handling of sexual assault, and its findings form the basis for the college's changes going forward.  The college will also hire a Title IX coordinate and a victim's advocate, and will improve training for university staff.  These changes could speed up OCR's investigation, and could allow Swarthmore to emerge from the investigation with OCR's effective blessing on current practices and procedures.  Swarthmore also faces complaints that they underreported sexual assaults in violations of the Clery Act, and OCR has not yet announced an investigation into these claims.

Like Swarthmore, Occidental College also hired an external reviewer to evaluate its sexual assault policies, even while OCR's investigation is ongoing.  

OCR's investigation into complaints that UNC violated Title IX and the Clery Act recently expanded to include a claim that it retaliated against the student who initially filed those complaints by charging her with an honor code violation.  The charge, which was ultimately dropped, accused her of creating an intimidating environment for her alleged abuser.   UNC is also accused of retaliating against the initial complainant by moving her assailant to a dorm near her residence. 

USC Settles Title IX Complaint about Rowing Facilities

After a 14-year investigation, OCR has determined that the University of Southern California violated Title IX by providing inferior facilities to the women's rowing team, which produced a significant disparity in the overall treatment of men's and women's athletics.  The rowing team uses an old boathouse 20 miles from campus, which is described as a "garage-like structure" with open and exposed walls, no designated locker room, and a single bathroom available for athletes and spectators alike. Rowing is the largest women's sport at USC, a factor that influenced OCR's analysis of the university's compliance.  Men's golf apparently also lacked a designated locker room, but with only nine male golfers so affected, that fact did not balance out the inferior rowing facilities provided to the 62-member women's crew team.

In response to OCR's findings, USC entered into a settlement agreement requiring it renovate the boathouse by January 2014. The new boathouse will include a designated locker room, seating for spectators, a lounge area and office space, and additional restrooms to accommodate spectators of both sexes. 

(If you're wondering about why the investigation took so long...so am I. A Department of Education spokesperson reportedly told the Chronicle of Higher Education that it took 14 years to investigate the complaint, which was initially filed by California NOW, due to the "complexity of the case, which required significant data analysis."  Yet equal treatment complaints involving facilities are fairly typical, and they usually don't take this long. A more compelling explanation would serve OCR well. Because no one's going to file a complaint if they think it's likely to take 14 years to resolve.)

USC equestrians to receive locker room

A gender equity consultant hired by the University of Southern California found that the university must remedy an equal treatment disparity. Apparently, a problem about which the athletic department has been well aware will be fixed soon(ish--dependent on funding). The equestrian team is getting a locker room right next to its practice facility. There is a "lounge" there currently but no showers or lockers. As part of the new facility, which is expected to cost just under half a million dollars, a tack room will be added where students can store saddles.
No information on the above linked article about why USC hired a gender equity consultant or if s/he found anything else of note.
What I found interesting was that the team, which won the national championships in 2005, has grown since that time. The team now averages around 40 riders (and there will be 40 lockers in the new facility). The year it won the championship it had around 25 members. This roster growth offers come insight into how the school is demonstrating compliance with Title IX's equal opportunity provision. Good to see that as they add roster spots, they are also paying attention to the quality of the opportunities provided.

NYT investigates OCR's role in enforcement

Another good NYT piece today by Katie Thomas on Title IX enforcement. This one focuses on the Office of Civil Rights and how they do and have (or have not) investigated Title IX complaints. Not surprisingly, investigation and enforcement are politically driven, and we have certainly seen periods of lax enforcement--some of the specifics--like the complaint against USC that began in 1998 and is still not closed--are highlighted in Thomas's article.
But it also offers some hope for better enforcement and attention by the office under the new leadership of Russlynn Ali, who is an Obama appointee.
Other interesting points: the practice of self-investigation where OCR--because it is understaffed and overworked (dealing with all civil rights violations--not just Title IX complaints)--offers a school the opportunity to investigate itself and issue a report to OCR, rather than having OCR come in. I've always been wary--if not outright critical--of this practice because it requires, as Ali notes, a good faith effort in the part of schools. And I remain skeptical that schools, once informed of violations but still reluctant to remedy them--are really worthy of that kind of trust.
And the recent case at Ball State University, which we have not yet written about and which is highlighted in the article, is proof of why self investigations might not be all that effective. Ball State seems to have a problem retaining the coaches of its women's teams. Since 2005 12 head coaches of women's teams have left. There are only 11 women's teams at Ball State. And it is actually being sued by a former tennis coach. Offered the chance to investigate itself, the university, well, dropped the ball. They issued a finding that there was no discrimination--after two weeks! It failed to interview any coaches and didn't produce any new evidence in its report! Let's just reiterate: in an investigation about discriminatory practices in hiring/firing--the university didn't interview one coach;the president said she didn't think it was necessary.
And all is not right at Ball State in terms of facilities. Under pressure from OCR, the university has added some locker rooms for women's teams after it was discovered some athletes were changing in their cars and/or a storage shed.
Still the threat of OCR showing up on campus does compel more earnest responses from other institutions, which is why Ali is not ready to abandon the practice of self investigation.