Doe v. Univ. of Ala. in Huntsville

177 F.Supp.3d 1380

Jane Doe, Plaintiff,

v.The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Brent Wren, PhD., Sgt. John Beswick, and Regina Young Hyatt, PhD., Defendants.

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02029-HGD

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division.

Signed March 31, 2016.

Mary-Ellen Bates, Bates Hetzel PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

John O. Cates, Robert W. Rieder, University of Alabama System, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case involves a public university's investigation into a student's claims that another student sexually assaulted her in a university dorm. Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges that defendant University of Alabama in Huntsville discriminated against her because of her sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.¹ Ms. Doe also alleges that UAH, Associate Provost and NCAA Representative Brent Wren, UAH Police Sergeant John Beswisk, and Dean of Students Regina Young Hyatt violated her rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Ms. Doe seeks relief from the individual defendants under § 1983.

This case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Harwell Davis. On August 31, 2015, Judge Davis entered a report and recommendation concerning the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17). In his report, Judge Davis recommended that the Court grant the defendants' motion and dismiss this action with prejudice. (Doc. 17, p. 27). Judge Davis explained to the parties that they had fourteen days in which to file objections to the recommendation. (Doc. 17, pp. 27-29). Ms. Doe filed objections to the recommendation. (Doc. 19).² The defendants did not object to Judge Davis's report. Because the parties have not consented to dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge, the Clerk randomly selected the undersigned to review Judge Davis's report and Ms. Doe's objections.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a party objects to a report and recommendation regarding a motion to dismiss, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. at § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). The Court reviews de novo legal conclusions in a report and reviews for clear error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn , 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir.1993) ; see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir.1988) ; Macort v. Prem, Inc. , 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir.2006). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

When evaluating a motion to dismiss, a district court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Brophy v. Jia n gbo Pharms. Inc. , 781 F.3d 1296, 1301 (11th Cir.2015).

II. DISCUSSION

Ms. Doe lodges three specific objections to Judge Davis's report. First, Ms. Doe complains that the report omits certain alleged facts relevant to her Title IX claim. Second, Ms. Doe objects to Judge Davis's conclusion that she has failed to sufficiently allege that UAH acted with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment. Third, Ms. Doe asks the Court to allow discovery before dismissing with prejudice her § 1983 claims.

A. Ms. Doe's Title IX Claim

Ms. Doe's Title IX claim arises out of UAH's handling of her sexual assault complaint against UAH hockey player Lasse Uusivirta. Construing the facts that Ms. Doe alleged in her original complaint in the light most favorable to Ms. Doe, the Court finds that Ms. Doe has sufficiently alleged that UAH acted with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment.

In her objections, Ms. Doe recites many of the alleged facts that give rise to an inference that UAH acted with deliberate indifference:

• UAH Police Sergeant John Beswisk “first attempted to talk Ms. Doe out of doing anything about the attack by mentioning that ‘people who hang out at the hockey dorms share girls all the time’ and that it ‘was completely normal and okay to have sex with someone that [Doe] didn't know.’ ” (Doc. 19, p. 2, quoting Doc. 1, ¶ 18).

• After Mr. Uusivirta confessed, Sergeant Beswick told Ms. Doe that “she had ‘no case at all.’ ” (Doc. 19, p. 2, quoting Doc. 1, ¶ 22).

• Upon Sergeant Beswick's recommendation, Ms. Doe “submitted her case to the student conduct board. The UAH investigation was then closed on January 14, 2013, with no arrest being made or further action taken.” (Doc. 19, p. 3, citing Doc. 1, ¶ 23).

• The student conduct board “determined that [Mr. Uusivirta] should be immediately expelled;” however, Assistant Provost Dr. Brett Wren reviewed Mr. Uusivirta's appeal and imposed a significantly reduced penalty. (Doc. 19, p. 3, citing Doc. 1, ¶ 24).

• UAH did not inform Ms. Doe that Mr. Uusivirta appealed the decision, and she “saw her assailant on campus and had to inquire to get any information whatsoever. During the next month Ms. Doe was fearful to be on campus, seriously anxious and depressed, and missed several classes.” (Doc. 19, p. 3, citing Doc. 1, ¶¶ 27-29).

• Dr. Wren did not make a decision regarding the appeal until March 21, 2013. “By the time Wren took action on Uusivirta's appeal the hockey season had ended (on March 2, 2013), the upcoming season's schedule had been announced, and the semester was past the mid-point. Brent Wren is a public supporter of UAH hockey....The new sanctions against Uusivirta[:] 1) would not take place during that semester because it was past the mid-point; 2) [placed] his suspensions specifically between hockey seasons, while allowing him to return to campus and the training facility just in time to begin practice for the following season; and 3) made no mention of the withdrawal of his athletic scholarship, which the student board specifically addressed.” (Doc. 17, pp. 3-4, citing Doc. 1, ¶¶ 30-32).

• When Ms. Doe approached Dr. Wren to discuss his decision, Dr. Wren “refused to speak [to her] without another woman present in the room.... Then he refused to answer any of [Ms. Doe's questions], simply reiterating that UAH only expels students for academic misconduct.” (Doc. 19, p. 5, quoting Doc. 1, ¶ 34).³

• After Dr. Wren issued his decision, Ms. Doe contacted outside law enforcement who arrested Mr. Uusivirta and charged him with first degree rape. A UAH hockey coach posted Mr. Uusivirta's bond. (Doc. 19, p. 5, citing Doc. 1, ¶ 38).

• The day after Mr. Uusivirta's arrest, even though Mr. Uusivirta already had admitted that Ms. Doe was unable to consent when he had sex with her, UAH's hockey coach posted on Twitter, “ ‘Things are not always as they seem. Be careful to judge.’ ” (Doc. 19, p. 6, quoting Doc. 1, ¶ 39).

• Mr. Uusivirta left the United States after he was released from jail. UAH kept his name “on the UAH hockey roster until as late as April 2013, one day before his attorneys informed the court that he had skipped bail.” (Doc. 19, p. 6, citing Doc. 1 ¶¶ 42, 41).

Ms. Doe's original complaint contains factual allegations that plausibly suggest that UAH's “ ‘response to the harassment or lack thereof [was] clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances' ” and that UAH made Ms. Doe vulnerable to harassment. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga. , 477 F.3d 1282, 1295 (11th Cir.2007) (quoting Davis v. Monro e Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 648, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999) ).

As noted above, see supra note 1, Judge Davis did not have the benefit of analyzing the defendants' motions against the additional allegations pleaded in Ms. Doe's proposed amended complaint. Although the Court finds that Ms. Doe's original complaint, standing alone, sufficiently pleads that UAH acted with deliberate indifference and states a Title IX claim, the Court briefly reviews allegations contained in the proposed amended complaint that further support her Title IX claim.

In her proposed amended complaint, Ms. Doe alleges that after the student conduct board recommended that UAH immediately expel Mr. Uusivirta, Ms. Doe “was informed that Dr. Hyatt, as Dean of Students had to verify the board's decision. This process took approximately one week, during which time the board met again and reached the same decision.” (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 17). Section 7.5(k) of the UAH student handbook provides: “Sanction recommendations will be reviewed by the Provost/Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs prior to the dissemination of the Notice of Decision and Sanction. The Provost/Executive Vice President can return the decision to the Student Conduct Board or Hearing Officer for reconsideration.” (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 18). Dr. Hyatt assumed the role of Provost/Executive Vice President for purposes of reviewing the student conduct board's decision. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 18).

Without Ms. Doe's knowledge, Mr. Uusivirta appealed the student conduct board's decision to Dr. Wren, who served as UAH's NCAA representative. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 20). Neither Dr. Hyatt nor the assistant dean of students informed Ms. Doe that the recommended expulsion was on hold. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 21). On March 21, 2013, Dr. Wren vacated the expulsion and substituted lesser sanctions. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 22).

These facts plausibly suggest that UAH may not have followed its own policy regarding Mr. Uusivirta's hearing. There was no process outlined in the student handbook by which a student could appeal to Dr. Wren after the Provost/Executive Vice President—or Dr. Hyatt as Dean of Students in this case—reviewed the student conduct board's recommendations regarding sanctions. Additionally, neither Dr. Hyatt nor Dr. Wren has the title of Provost/Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. If one or both of these individuals reviewed the student conduct board's decision, and the Provost/Executive Vice President of Student Affairs did not review...