Doe v. Bd. of Visitors of Va. Military Inst.

494 F.Supp.3d 363

John DOE, Plaintiff,

v.BOARD OF VISITORS OF VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-70058

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division.

Signed October 14, 2020

Ryan Christopher Berry, Timothy Austin Furin, Ward & Berry, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Amy Elizabeth Hensley, Sandra Snead Gregor, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Defendants Board of Visitors of Virginia Military Institute, Binford Peay, J.H., III, William J. Wanovich.

Arthur Preston Pickett, The Pickett Law Group, PLLC, Fairfax, VA, David P. Sheldon, Pro Hac Vice, Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendant Brayden A. Carver.

William T. Woodrow, III, Stone & Woodrow, LLP, Charlottesville, VA, for Defendant Carter T. McCausland.

Amanda M. Morgan, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP, Lynchburg, VA, Guy M. Harbert, III, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, Roanoke, VA, for Defendants Jordan M. Bennett, Alec G. Hoopes.

Daniel Robert Sullivan, Johnson, Rosen & O'Keeffe, Roanoke, VA, for Defendant Tyler E. Hamilton.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NORMAN K. MOON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on ten motions to dismiss Plaintiff John Doe's Amended Complaint for either failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Dkt. 10, 20, 22, 48, 50, 52, 54, 59, 60, 71. Plaintiff, a former Virginia Military Institute ("VMI") student, filed suit against the Board of Visitors of VMI, school officials, and individual students alleging that he was subject to a hazing incident to which the school failed to adequately respond. Plaintiff seeks to hold VMI and its officials liable under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Equal Protection Clause violations. He also seeks damages from the individual students for assault, battery, kidnapping, hazing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Virginia law.

Because Plaintiff lacks standing to request injunctive relief as requested under Counts I–IV, the Court will grant Defendants' motions to dismiss these claims insofar as they relate to Plaintiff's request for an equitable remedy. Counts I and II will also be dismissed as to Plaintiff's claim for damages because Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead the necessary elements of a Title IX claim. The Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Count III and IV because Plaintiff fails to adequately plead a pattern of discrimination as required by actions brought under Section 1983. Consequently, since all the federal claims in this case are dismissed, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the remaining state law claims under Counts V–X.

I. Background

This action arises out of an alleged hazing incident at VMI and the response of school officials to said incident. For the purposes of ruling on Defendants' motions to dismiss, the following allegations will be taken as true.

Established in 1839 in Lexington, Virginia, VMI aspires "to be the premier small college in the Nation, unequaled in producing educated and honorable citizen-leaders, with an international reputation for academic excellence supported by a unique commitment to character development, self-discipline and physical challenge, conducted in a military environment." Dkt. 5 ¶¶ 24, 28. To this end, VMI uses an adversative training model emphasizing physical hardship, mental stress, lack of privacy, and exacting regulation of behavior. The goal of this system is to mold character and produce citizen-leaders. Id. ¶ 29.

VMI organizes its student body as a military Corps, called the Corps of Cadets. Id. ¶ 26. First-year cadets are known as "Rats," and they are made to endure seven months of "harsh and demeaning treatment by upperclassmen in a boot camp–like initiation program." This so-called "Rat Line" is executed under the "military direction and discipline of the Superintendent and Commandant of Cadets." Id. ¶ 30. During the spring semester of their first year, first-year cadets finish the Rat Line and become fourth-class cadets, who are granted more privileges. Their daily routines remain controlled by the "cadet-cadre under the military direction and discipline of the Superintendent and Commandant of Cadets." Id. ¶ 31.

VMI is governed by a Board of Visitors ("BOV"), with members appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Id. ¶ 25. The BOV in turn appoints the Superintendent, who acts as VMI's chief executive officer and possesses final policymaking authority for VMI, including the authority to issue General Orders binding on faculty and students. Id. At the recommendation of the Superintendent, the BOV also appoints the Commandant of Cadets, who is charged with the "organization, discipline, administration, and basic military instruction of the Corps of Cadets, under the direction of the Superintendent." Id. ¶ 27.

Doe alleges that "[s]tudents and graduates of VMI realize unique benefits and opportunities that are not available at other colleges within the state-supported system of higher education in the Commonwealth of Virginia." Id. ¶ 32. Doe alleges that "VMI has notably succeeded in its goal to produce citizen-leaders; among its alumni are military generals, political leaders (including the current Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia), and business executives." Id. VMI boasts one of the nation's largest per-student endowments for undergraduate institutions.

a. VMI's history with race and gender

Doe alleges that "VMI's long and illustrious history is marred by an ugly history of both race and gender-based discrimination. At the core of this ugly history is VMI's proverbial Golden Rule, which, to this day, has the dogmatic support of many within the VMI community: that its adversative training model is infallible, and any changes that remotely alter or weaken these training methods must be fought at all costs." Dkt. 5 ¶ 34.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff further alleges that the BOV seriously considered the viability of privatization, which would enable VMI to remain all-male, but require that it forego millions of dollars in state and federal aid. Id. ¶ 38. This financially unsound option had support from a substantial segment of the VMI community that demanded the preservation of the adversative method, which could only be achieved by the private, all-male option. Id. ¶ 39. Ultimately, the BOV rejected this option by a 9-8 vote. Id. ¶ 39.

During the planning process for the integration of women, VMI leaders fought hard to preserve the harshness of the its adversative training model. Nevertheless, over the next decade, VMI's adversative approach, including the Rat Line, underwent changes, most of which were met with resistance from the VMI administration and drew the ire of the VMI community. Id. ¶ 43.

By 2008, VMI's inflexible commitment to its adversative approach had manifested in its handling of sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations, prompting the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (the "OCR") to open an investigation into whether sexual harassment at VMI was creating a hostile educational environment that was limiting the educational opportunities at the school. Id. ¶ 46.

On May 9, 2014, the OCR released a Letter of Findings after a lengthy investigation into numerous allegations of gender-based discrimination by VMI against female cadets and female faculty members. Id. ¶ 47. The OCR found VMI in violation of Title IX because it "permits an environment hostile to female cadets both in the barracks and in the classroom." Id. ¶ 48. The OCR determined that "VMI failed to respond in a prompt and equitable manner to complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault of which it had notice and that this failure permitted a sexually hostile environment to exist for cadets that was sufficiently serious as to deny or limit their ability to participate in VMI's program." Id. ¶ 49.

As a result of the investigation and findings, VMI agreed to implement a Voluntary Resolution Agreement and committed to take specific steps to address the identified areas of non-compliance. Id. ¶ 50. These steps included, among others, revising "its Title IX grievance policies and procedures to provide for prompt and effective responses to alleged sexual harassment" and providing "training to ensure that all members of the VMI community – including cadets, faculty, administrators and other staff – are trained regularly on issues related to sexual harassment and on the requirements of Title IX." Id. ¶ 51.

The results of the OCR investigation and the remedial actions taken by VMI have reduced the number of sexual harassment and hazing incidents involving female cadets. However, Plaintiff alleges that the results of the OCR investigation and the remedial actions taken by VMI have also served to reinforce long-held institutional gender stereotypes about women, thereby further contributing to a system where, in practice, male cadets are treated differently than female cadets based solely on their gender. Id. ¶ 53.

b. The hazing incident

In January 2018, Plaintiff John Doe was a first-year cadet at VMI. On January 30, 2018, Defendants McCausland and Carver formed an agreement to subject Doe and John Doe 2, another first-year cadet, to what McCausland would later describe as "a Rat Mission." Id. ¶ 55. Using his authority as a "senior member of the cadet-cadre," McCausland directed another cadet, non-party Joseph Hammer, to steal Doe 2's mattress and bring it to Carver's barracks room in order to force Doe 2 to come retrieve it. Id. ¶ 56. At approximately 11 p.m., after taking the mattress as directed, Hammer informed Doe 2 that his mattress (or "hay" in the parlance of VMI cadets) was in Carver's barracks room. Hammer told Doe 2 that McCausland ordered Doe 2 to retrieve the mattress as part of a "Rat Mission." Id. ¶ 57.

As ordered, Doe 2 entered Carver's barracks room. Doe 2 was immediately assaulted and "physically subdued" by...