Doe v. Manor Coll.

479 F.Supp.3d 151

Jane DOE, Plaintiff

v.MANOR COLLEGE, Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-5309

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed August 17, 2020

Scott M. Pollins, Pollins Law Firm, Wayne, PA, Lauren A. Khouri, Linda M. Correia, Correia & Puth PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Andrew Philip Stafford, Rocco P. Imperatrice, III, Imperatrice, Amarant & Bell, P.C., Kathleen S. O'Connell-Bell, Imperatrice Amarant & Capuzzi, Newtown Square, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

Pratter, J.

INTRODUCTION

Disturbing facts generally make for especially difficult cases. This litigation again proves that point.

In the fall of 2016, Ms. Doe alleges she was sexually assaulted while attending Manor College as a residential student. She also contends that Manor College paid no mind to her allegations and instead retaliated against her for complaining about its response. On the basis of this treatment, Ms. Doe asserts Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims.

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion in limine. Ms. Doe seeks summary judgment as to the notice prong of her discrimination claim, as well as summary judgment in her favor on the retaliation claim, in its entirety. Manor College seeks to dismiss both claims for Ms. Doe's alleged failure to demonstrate certain elements of the claims. Ms. Doe also seeks the preclusion of Manor College's psychiatric expert.

The Court must evaluate the sufficiency of the factual record presented to determine if material disputes exist for resolution by a jury. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Ms. Doe's motion for summary judgment with respect to (1) the notice prong of the discrimination claim and (2) the protected activity and adverse action prongs of her prima facie retaliation case. The Court grants Manor College's motion insofar as there are no disputes of material fact with respect to its burden of production on the retaliation claim. As to all other aspects of the claims, the Court denies the motions. Finally, the Court denies Ms. Doe's motion in limine.

BACKGROUND ¹

I. The underlying alleged sexual assault.

Jane Doe is a former undergraduate student at Manor College. She first enrolled at the school in the fall of 2016. Manor College, located in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, is a private Catholic institution. Ms. Doe lived on campus while a student at the school. The parties do not dispute that Manor College received federal funding.

During the early morning hours of September 21, 2016, Ms. Doe reported an incident of sexual assault to Resident Coordinator Lynn Wales. The alleged assault occurred four days prior and purportedly involved Kenyadda Rice, a resident assistant, resident Marquise Hardy, and Mr. Hardy's cousin, Josh Manor. Mr. Rice and Mr. Hardy at the time also were students at Manor College. The complaint of sexual assault was also reported to Director of Student Engagement Allison Mootz and the school's Chief of Public Safety, William Pepitone. Manor College asserts the sexual encounter was consensual.

Ms. Doe filed an incident report with the school related to the underlying complaint of sexual assault. In that incident report, Ms. Doe states that while in Mr. Rice's dorm room, she was drinking milkshakes with the three men. She states that the men sought to coerce her into sexual activity to which she did not consent, and because she was nervous, she started audio recording the encounter on her phone. She states that one of the men touched her vagina, and the men exposed their genitalia to her. Ms. Doe also believed that at one point, two of the men had left the room. She remained with Mr. Rice who asked if she wanted to "do [sic] with other people so he could watch.... [Ms. Doe states she] was hesitant and said eh, maybe, sure." Doe Incident Report, Ex. 9, Def.’s Mot. for Summary Judgment. She then goes on to describe "[h]e had my eyes covered but from the corner of his hands I saw him signal [the two other men,] and they came in the room. Afterward [Ms. Doe] [ ] made out with Josh for Kenyadda to watch and all three of them" masturbated. Id.

In her deposition, Ms. Doe testified to the encounter and as to writing her incident report in a manner that would "lessen the blow." Doe Dep., Ex. 1, Def.’s Mot. for Summary Judgment at 77:9-23. Ms. Doe testified that after the men took their pants off, they blocked Mr. Rice's dorm room door. According to Ms. Doe, the alleged assailants mentioned "they had Bill Cosby'd [her] drink and that they were just trying to have some fun. And they suggested [Ms. Doe] also get naked." Id. at 47:10-13. Ms. Doe refused. Id. She testified that thereafter, Mr. Hardy forcibly kissed her, pushed her on the bed, and removed her clothes. Ms. Doe also stated all three men, without her consent, touched her inappropriately. Mr. Hardy and Mr. Manor "fondled and touched [her] chest[,] butt[,] and genitalia." Id. at 50:9-14. Ms. Doe testified that the men performed digital intercourse on her, and that after the alleged assailants placed a pillow over her face, she passed out. Ms. Doe regained consciousness and saw a phone in Mr. Hardy's hand. Ms. Doe testified that another woman had entered the room, screamed, and then ran out.

The record reflects that after leaving Mr. Rice's room, at some point, Ms. Doe and her friend, Diamond Hairston, began getting ready for a party, and later that evening, Ms. Doe went to a night club. Mr. Hardy and his cousin also went to the party.

A photograph of Ms. Doe circulated without her consent days after the incident. After confronting Mr. Hardy about the photograph, he denied taking it.

Two police reports reflect that Ms. Doe spoke to the Abington Township Police Department regarding the incident on a few occasions. The police report dated September 21, 2016 states that on the night of September 17, 2016, Ms. Doe agreed to engage in sexual activity with the three men. It also involves details about the nude photograph of Ms. Doe, and her alleged desire that the police not get involved. The police report dated December 9, 2016 states that Ms. Doe sought to understand why the police had not pressed any charges after she had reported to the police previously that she was sexually assaulted. Ms. Doe also visited the police station on December 13, 2016, and described a nonconsensual encounter with the men. During that interview, she said she had also been the victim of sexual assault as a child.

II. Manor College's response to the sexual assault complaint.

The College's response to the complaint of sexual assault, and the events that took place after that initial complaint are material to the claims here, and thus, are the subject and focus of this Court's consideration.²

On the same day that Resident Coordinator Ms. Wales, Director of Student Engagement Ms. Mootz, and Chief of Public Safety Mr. Pepitone were made aware of Ms. Doe's complaint, she was informed of the College's provision for victim's services. Manor College also contacted law enforcement, and as noted, Ms. Doe spoke to officers of the Abington Township Police Department. While Ms. Doe was at the police station, Manor College sent letters to both Mr. Hardy and Mr. Rice stating that they would be under immediate suspension from the resident hall, all club activity, and work obligations. There is only one residence hall on the Manor College campus. Mr. Hardy was also asked to temporarily switch out of Ms. Doe's chemistry class, to another chemistry section.

On September 26, 2020, Manor College's Code of Conduct Committee held two consecutive hearings related to the underlying sexual assault complaint lodged by Ms. Doe. The members of the Committee that oversaw the hearings that involved accusations against Mr. Rice and Mr. Hardy included voting members Janice Salerno, Diane Saridakis, and a student representative, Destinye Andrews. Ms. Mootz was also present at the hearings as the hearing officer, and Ms. Christina Prokopovych was present, serving as the chair of the Code of Conduct Committee.

At the hearings, Ms. Doe testified to a nonconsensual sexual encounter. At Mr. Rice's hearing, Mr. Rice was present when Ms. Doe gave her statement of the incident, including a description that Mr. Hardy had stated he "would have made [her] swallow the whole pill and not have put something in [her] drink." Tr. of Rice Hearing, Ex. 13, Def.’s Mot. for Summary Judgment, p. 12. The transcript of the hearing reflects Mr. Rice repeatedly interrupting Ms. Doe as she gave her statement. Ms. Doe also informed the Committee of the photograph of her circulating around campus and the audio recording she made of the encounter. The Committee heard from Mr. Rice as well. He represented that Ms. Doe's statement was false, that she was taking Snapchats in the police car the day of the underlying incident, and that Ms. Doe went to a club after the incident where Mr. Hardy and his cousin were also present. According to Mr. Rice, Ms. Doe told him she "was going to Bill Cosby [him and asked him] how much money [he] had." Id. , p. 29. The transcript of the hearing also reflects that Ms. Doe was not present when Mr. Rice gave his counter-statement to the Committee.

At Mr. Hardy's hearing, which took place on the same day as Mr. Rice's, Ms. Mootz read Ms. Doe's incident report related to the underlying sexual assault complaint and Mr. Hardy's alleged part in it, including recording and photographing Ms. Doe without her consent. Mr. Hardy gave his statement about the incident. Ms. Doe's friend, Diamond Hairston, also gave a statement about her interactions with Ms. Doe and Ms. Doe's conduct after the alleged assault. According to Manor College, Ms. Hairston's statement described that Ms. Doe acted in ways that contradicted that she had been sexually assaulted. Ms. Doe was not present in the room during these statements. Ms. Doe then gave live testimony, but was not permitted to present evidence of the audio recording she made during the encounter at...