Cavalier v. Catholic Univ. of Am.

513 F.Supp.3d 30

Erin CAVALIER, Plaintiff,

v.The CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 16-2009 (RDM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed January 8, 2021

Filed January 12, 2021

Anisha Shanae Queen, Brooke E. Lierman, Pro Hac Vice, Abigail A. Graber, Pro Hac Vice, Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP, Baltimore, MD, Kobie A. Flowers, Brown Goldstein Levy, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Joshua W.B. Richards, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Philadelphia, PA, William David Nussbaum, Aaron John Kornblith, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge

In the August of 2012, Erin Cavalier began her freshman year of college at The Catholic University of America (the "University"). Dkt. 1 at 4 (Compl. ¶ 8). Less than four months later, she was allegedly raped in her dormitory room. Id. at 1 (Compl. ¶ 2). Cavalier immediately notified the University. This case is about its response.

The parties cast that response in starkly different terms. Cavalier contends that it was wholly lacking: the University "failed to interview key witnesses and collect key evidence," "failed to train the key decision-makers," failed to conduct a legitimate hearing, and "failed to protect" her from her alleged rapist. Dkt. 72 at 9. It was a "campaign of indifference," id. , a process so "consistently re-victimiz[ing]" that it was "almost as bad as being raped" again. Dkt. 65-1 at 32 (Pl.’s Resp. SUMF ¶ 211). The University sees things in a different light. It contends that its investigation was thorough and thoughtful; its hearing timely and fair; and its decisionmakers trained and informed. Dkt. 61 at 5–6. In the University's view, it did "more, not less, than required." Dkt. 73 at 5.

The parties’ dueling accounts are now before this Court on the University's motion for summary judgment on Cavalier's two remaining claims: the first, for unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) ("Title IX"), and the second, for negligent infliction of emotional distress under D.C. tort law. Dkt. 61 at 34–35, 52. As explained below, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that the University acted in a clearly unreasonable manner in one respect: when investigating Cavalier's complaint, it failed adequately to consider her incapacitation and, consequently, erroneously delayed setting a hearing to address her complaint until August 2013. Under the governing Supreme Court test, however, it is not enough that the University did something wrong; its actions must have themselves subjected Cavalier to discrimination, and the parties have yet to address whether the University's delay in setting a hearing caused her to suffer the type of discrimination prohibited by Title IX. The Court, accordingly, concludes that the University's motion for summary judgment on Cavalier's Title IX claim is unavailing, but leaves open the possibility that the University may yet prevail on one or more of the defenses it has asserted.¹ Finally, the Court concludes that the University is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The Court will, accordingly GRANT in part and DENY in part the University's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 61.

I. BACKGROUND

"On a motion for summary judgment, [the Court] view[s] the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Chambers v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 568 F.3d 998, 1000 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Viewed through that lens, the relevant facts are as follows:

A. The Alleged Rape and the Initial Response

Late in the evening on December 14, 2012, Erin Cavalier and John Doe, then both first-semester freshmen at The Catholic University of America, met at a party in Flather Hall, a dormitory on the University campus. Dkt. 1 at 10 (Compl. ¶ 37). Earlier in the evening, each had been drinking heavily: Cavalier had consumed "two or three cups of wine[,] two or three shots of tequila, [and] ... a mixed drink of Sprite and vodka with about three shots of vodka in it," Dkt. 78 at 23 (Cavalier); Doe had consumed "three-quarters of a handle of Captain Morgan and ... about four or five" beers, id. at 26 (Doe). As the party dissipated, Cavalier asked Doe to walk her home. Dkt. 72-2 at 3; Dkt. 61 at 11; Dkt. 1 at 11 (Compl. ¶ 40). Doc obliged, Dkt. 72-2 at 3, and upon returning to Cavalier's dormitory room, Doe and Cavalier engaged in sexual intercourse. Dkt. 61 at 6; Dkt. 45-3 at 3 (Def.’s SUMF ¶ 11). Doe then left. Dkt. 45-3 at 3 (Def.’s SUMF ¶ 11).

A short time later, another student found Cavalier partially unclothed on the floor of the dormitory bathroom. Dkt. 65-1 at 2–3 (Pl.’s Resp. SUMF ¶ 3); see also Dkt. 64-5 at 5. Cavalier asked the other student to get the Resident Assistant ("RA"). Dkt. 65-1 at 2–3 (Pl.’s Resp. SUMF ¶ 3); see also Dkt. 64-5 at 5. The RA arrived and accompanied Cavalier to her room, where she cried and told a friend over the phone that she thought "she ‘may have been raped.’ " Dkt. 65-1 at 2–3 (Pl.’s Resp. SUMF ¶ 3); see also Dkt. 64-6 at 2. The RA then reported Cavalier's allegations to the University's Area Coordinator, Nicole Giglia. Dkt. 65-1 at 2–3 (Pl.’s Resp. SUMF ¶ 3); see also Dkt. 64-6 at 2.

That same morning, shortly after 2:00 a.m., Giglia and Lieutenant Marvin Dicks of the University's Department of Public Safety ("DPS") arrived at Cavalier's dormitory in response to her reported assault. Dkt. 45-3 at 1–2 (Def.’s SUMF ¶¶ 1, 4); Dkt. 65-1 at 2–3 (Pl.’s Resp. SUMF ¶¶ 1, 4); see also Dkt. 45-5 at 2. Lieutenant Dicks took Cavalier's statement and Giglia told Cavalier that she would be able to see a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner ("SANE nurse") at Washington Hospital Center. Dkt. 45-3 at 2 (Def.’s SUMF ¶ 4); Dkt. 65-1 at 3 (Pl.’s Resp. SUMF ¶ 4); see also Dkt. 45-5 at 4; Dkt. 45-6 at 2. Before the Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") unit arrived to transport Cavalier to the hospital, Officer A.D. Moore of the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") arrived at the dormitory. Dkt. 45-6 at 2. Lieutenant Dicks "briefed [Moore] on the situation," after which, according to Giglia, Moore "rolled his eyes and said, ‘I'm not touching this, I'm calling the Sex Crime Unit.’ " Id. Before paramedics were able to transport Cavalier to the hospital for evaluation, Officer Moore questioned Cavalier in her dormitory room, with Lieutenant Dicks present. Id. Giglia overheard Moore asking Cavalier "do you want to see the SANE nurse because you believe you were sexually assaulted or do you just want to go because you think you could get pregnant." Id.

According to the report that Lieutenant Dicks later prepared, Cavalier told him that she had been drinking alcohol on campus earlier that night and eventually returned to her dormitory with John Doe. Dkt. 45-5 at 4. Cavalier further indicated that she did "not remember how she got [back to her dormitory]," "was unsure of whether [John Doe] was signed in [to her dormitory] as a guest," and did not "remember the time this incident occurred." Id. Cavalier also told Lieutenant Dicks that after she and Doe arrived at her dorm room, they "started hugging," at which point she "consented [to] having sex only with a condom" and "offered" Doe one. Id. According to the report, Cavalier told Lieutenant Dicks that Doe "refused to use a condom," "penetrated her vagina with his penis," and "informed her that he had ejaculated inside of her." Id. This "caused [Cavalier] to be upset," and she "kicked [Doe] out of her room." Id. Cavalier has since testified that she does not remember what she told Lieutenant Dicks in her statement that night. Dkt. 65-1 at 3–4 (Pl.’s Resp. SUMF ¶ 6); see also Dkt. 66-1 at 13 (Cavalier Dep. 38:4–20). In an email to himself memorializing the events of that morning, Lieutenant Dicks indicated that, even though Cavalier admitted to drinking that night and Doe conceded that she was "drunk," "[n]either [Cavalier] nor Doe appeared to be intoxicated while being interviewed by DPS." Dkt. 45-8 at 2.

Around 3:30 a.m. that same morning, Cavalier was transported to the hospital to be evaluated for a potential sexual assault. Dkt. 45-3 at 2 (Def.’s SUMF ¶ 8); see also Dkt. 66-8 at 2. The EMS report from her transport indicated that "alcohol use" was "suspected" but also suggested that Cavalier was "oriented," "alert," "obey[ed] commands," had a "strong" grip, and had "normal" speech. Dkt. 66-8 at 2 (capitalization altered). Upon arrival at the hospital and prior to receiving medical treatment, Cavalier was interviewed by MPD Sexual Assault Unit Detective Yvette Maupin. Dkt. 45-3 at 3 (Def.’s SUMF ¶ 13); see also Dkt. 45-10 at 4–7. A report prepared by Detective Maupin later that day indicates that Cavalier told Maupin that she had drunk "tequila, wine, vodka/sprite and beer" just before eleven p.m. that night. Dkt. 45-10 at 6. The report further indicates that although Cavalier she did not remember signing Doe into her building, the security officer who tended the front desk of Cavalier's dormitory recalled Cavalier both using her key to enter the building and signing Doe into the logbook. Id. at 7. The security officer, according to the report, stated that Cavalier "did not smell or act as if she was intoxicated and walked down the stairs by herself." Id.

Maupin's report further asserts that Cavalier could not recall whether she gave Doe a condom, id. at 6, and that Cavalier "told the RA she was raped because she felt [the sexual act] was consensual with a condom," but that a condom was not used. Id. The report then notes that "Officer Moore [had] stated [to Detective Maupin] that ... a used condom [had been found] in [Cavalier's] trashcan." Id. Maupin asked Cavalier if "there [would] be a condom in her trashcan from her last sexual encounter a month ago," and Cavalier responded, in apparent reference to her and Doe, that "I...