Clark v. Liberty Univ., Inc.

DANIEL CONRAD CLARK, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant.

CASE NO. 6:20-cv-58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG DIVISION

May 7, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

Daniel Conrad Clark, a Liberty University student, is suing the University for breach of contract and for violating Title IX. The claims arise from Liberty's investigation of altercations between Clark and his then-girlfriend, another Liberty student. Liberty asks the Court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Dkt. 4. Because Liberty is not contractually bound by its Title IX Policy, the Court will dismiss Clark's breach of contract claim. The Court will also grant Liberty's motion to dismiss Clark's Title IX claim because Clark was not disciplined as a result of the Title IX investigation.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to determine whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim; it "does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff's "'factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,' thereby 'nudging [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The Court must take all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, disregard any legal conclusions, and not credit any formulaic recitations of the elements. See Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557.

II. FACTS AS ALLEGED

A. Liberty's Financial Responsibility Agreement

Upon enrolling, Liberty requires students to sign its Financial Responsibility Agreement ("FRA"). The FRA states that the document "constitutes a binding contract between the student and Liberty. . . ." Id. Under the header "Payment Obligations," signatories of the FRA agree to pay "all tuition, fees, and other associated costs" or registration and/or services and act pursuant to "the Liberty Way, and all applicable Liberty Codes of Conduct, Codes of honor, policies and procedures which are incorporated [] by reference."¹ Dkt. 1-1 at 3; Dkt. 1 ¶ 8; see id. at ¶ 19. Clark signed the FRA prior to the spring 2019 semester. Id. ¶ 8.

B. Patlen's Assault on Clark

In early 2019, Clark was dating another Liberty student, Rachel Patlen. Dkt. 1 ¶ 10. The two stopped dating a few months into the spring semester after Patlen assaulted and strangled Clark on March 29. Id. ¶ 11. Throughout the struggle, Clark admitted to "'grabb[ing] [Patlen's] arms'" in an effort to "'push her off'" because he was "'scared for his life.'" Dkt. 4-1 at 2. The attack left Clark with bruises, cuts, and emotional harm. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 11, 13. He was tested to make sure he did not have a concussion, but the results were "'not definitive.'" Dkt. 4-1 at 2. On April 1, Clark fileda Title IX complaint against Patlen with Liberty's Office of Equity Compliance ("OEC"). Dkt. 1 ¶ 15.²

C. OEC's Title IX Procedures

OEC is a division of Liberty that enforces Liberty's Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct Policy ("Title IX Policy"). Id. ¶ 16. As required by law, the Title IX Policy describes Liberty's grievance procedures for sex discrimination Id. ¶¶ 17, 19.

Under Liberty's Title IX Policy, when OEC receives a complaint, an investigator must fully assess the details of the complaint, gather information about the alleged conduct, notify all parties about available interim measures and procedural options (among other rights), and, most importantly, confer with the OEC's Executive Director to determine whether an investigation is necessary. Dkt. 1-2 at 34-37.

Once OEC has determined an investigation should be opened, an investigator gathers the relevant evidence and interviews the parties involved before compiling all the materials into a Draft Investigative Report ("DIR"). Dkt. 1 ¶ 23. The parties are sent the DIR and given an opportunity to review and respond, before the investigator publishes a Final Investigative Report ("FIR"). Id. Liberty's procedures state that the process must be completed within 60 days, but can be extended by written notice for good cause shown. Id. ¶ 25. After an FIR is filed, either party can appeal the decision to the Review Board. Id. ¶ 23.

In addition, throughout an OEC investigation, Liberty may offer the parties alternative resolution. Id. ¶ 24. The purpose of alternative resolution is to resolve reports and complaints of prohibited conduct at the earliest stage possible and with the consent and cooperation of all theparties. Id. ¶ 24. Alternative resolution permits a complaint to proceed outside of the Title IX Policy's procedures. Id.

D. OEC's Investigation of Clark's Complaint

The same day Clark filed his Title IX complaint with Liberty, an OEC investigator, Valerie Dufort, interviewed him. Id. ¶ 20. During the interview, Clark submitted the following pieces of evidence related to the March 29, 2019 incident: (1) pictures of the wounds caused by Patlen's strangulation, (2) a doctor's report describing the examination of Clark's injuries the day of the assault, (3) an admission by Patlen that she put her hands around Clark's neck, and (4) statements by Patlen that she was not hurt during the altercation. Id. ¶ 21. In addition to alleging that Patlen strangled him, Clark recounted that Patlen also struck him with what he, at various times, described as a "'full soda can,'" a "'half-full soda can,'" or a "'probably almost empty'" soda can. See Dkt. 4-1 at 2.

Clark described two other incidents where Patlen acted in a violent manner. See id. The first incident he mentioned happened the previous October 2018. Id. That day, Patlen "snapped," kicked and choked Clark, "pulled his beard," and threw his laptop across the room after he lied to her about his "pornography issue." Id. She allegedly "'tried to break everything" before leaving the apartment. Id. The second incident occurred on March 20, 2019, after an argument in Patlen's apartment. Id. Clark was driving when Patlen "struck [Clark's] face, causing his nose to bleed." Id. Clark admitted that he tried to grab Patlen but that Patlen "'hit [Clark] so hard' that her 'left shoulder came out of the socket.'" Id. After getting out of the car, Patlen allegedly "threw rocks" at Clark. Id.

On April 18, Dufort interviewed Patlen. Dkt. 1 ¶ 22. Patlen admitted to slapping Clark—after "he lied to her" about his porn habits—and throwing his laptop, both of which happened inOctober 2018. Dkt. 4-2 at 4. During the interview, Patlen also complained that Clark assaulted her and that she acted in self-defense. Dkt. 1 ¶ 22. She explained that she felt "threatened" by Clark who is "'a whole foot taller and one hundred pounds heavier.'" Dkt. 4-1 at 3. She stated that when she yelled at Clark, he would "grab her shoulders and 'shake [them] very violently.'" Id.; see also id. at 4.

With respect to the March 20 incident, Patlen asserted that Clark "'banged his fists on the side of her leg' and grabbed her arm causing 'excruciating pain.'" Id. at 4. And as to March 28, Patlen alleged that she did not feel safe because Clark was following her. Id. Patlen said that Clark "grabbed her shoulders and pushed her into the side of the car." Id. She denied strangling Clark and claimed that any violent actions were in self-defense. Id. at 4.

Dufort, finding Patlen's cross complaint against Clark without merit, did not further assess it under Liberty's Title IX Policy. Dkt. 1-2 at 34-37.

Approximately 60 days after Clark's complaint was filed, Dufort issued a DIR in the case against Patlen. Id. ¶ 27. Clark reviewed the DIR on June 3. Id. A week later, the Title IX director for Liberty, Nathan Hopkins, invited Clark to participate in alternative resolution. Id. ¶ 28. Hopkins told Clark that if he did not agree to alternative resolution, Clark would be put under investigation for Patlen's assault claim. Id. Hopkins then informed Clark that Patlen had presented photos, supporting her claim, to OEC after the DIR was released. Id. ¶ 29.

Clark emailed Hopkins and told him that he would not participate in alternative resolution on his claim. Id. ¶ 31. The email expressed Clark's concerns about the time stamps and authenticity of the photos Patlen had submitted. Id. Hopkins did not respond to the message. Id. Hopkins did, however, remove Dufort from the case and assigned a new investigator, Peter Brake. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. The removal, according to Clark, happened because Hopkins felt like Dufort's dismissal ofPatlen's Title IX claim was based on gender bias. Id. ¶ 32. On June 20, Brake notified Clark that OEC had opened an investigation against him arising from the Patlen's complaint during her meeting with Dufort in April. Id. ¶ 35. Clark then agreed to alternative resolution. Id. ¶ 36.

After submitting to alternative resolution, Clark demanded that Patlen (1) admit she strangled and assaulted him, (2) apologize to his mother, and (3) voluntarily withdraw from Liberty for at least two semesters. Id. His request was not initially communicated to Patlen in full. Id. ¶ 37. Instead, Brake told Clark that any statement from Patlen would have to be "carefully crafted" to avoid an admission of guilt, since there were criminal-cross warrants in the Lynchburg General District Court arising out of the March 29 incident. Id. ¶ 38. Because the parties could not agree to a resolution, Hopkins halted the alternative resolution process. Id. ¶ 39.

OEC sent Clark and Patlen a revised DIR on July 12. Id. ¶ 41. The revised DIR differed from the first DIR in two important ways. First, the revised DIR included information about a second interview with Patlen. Id. ¶ 43-44. Second, the revised...