Douglass v. Garden City Cmty. Coll.

543 F.Supp.3d 1043

Antonia DOUGLASS and Elizabeth Everett, Plaintiffs,

v.GARDEN CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 20-2076-KHV

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Signed June 9, 2021

Sarah A. Brown, Brown & Curry, LLC, Jean Lamfers, Lamfers & Associates, LC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs.

Alan L. Rupe, Jeremy K. Schrag, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Wichita, KS, Karly Dorann Weigel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants Garden City Community College, Herbert J. Swender, Rodney Dozier, Merilyn Douglass, Blake Wasinger, Jeff Crist, Steve Martinez, Teri Worf, Brice Knapp.

Samuel A. Green, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP, Topeka, KS, for Defendants Freddie Strawder, Kansas Garden City.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KATHRYN H. VRATIL, United States District Judge On September 16, 2020, Antonia Douglass and Elizabeth Everett filed an amended complaint against Garden City Community College ("GCCC"), Herbert J. Swender, Rodney Dozier, Merilyn Douglass, Blake Wasinger, Jeff Crist, Steve Martinez, Teri Worf, Brice Knapp, Freddie Strawder and Garden City, Kansas through its police department. Plaintiffs allege retaliation under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and violations of federal civil rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, U.S. Const. amends. I, IV, V, XIV, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First Amended Complaint (Doc. #34). This matter is before the Court on the Motion To Dismiss Antonia Douglass's Complaint By Defendants Jeff Crist, Merilyn Douglass, Rodney Dozier, Garden City Community College, Brice Knapp, Steve Martinez, Herbert J. Swender, Blake Wasinger, Teri Worf (Doc. #48) filed October 15, 2020, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the Court overrules in part and sustains in part defendants’ motion.

Legal Standard

In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court assumes as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and determines whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim which is plausible—not merely conceivable—on its face. Id. at 679–80, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, the Court draws on its judicial experience and common sense. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The Court need not accept as true those allegations which state only legal conclusions. See id.

Plaintiff bears the burden of framing her claim with enough factual matter to suggest that she is entitled to relief; it is not enough to make threadbare recitals of a cause of action accompanied by conclusory statements. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Plaintiff makes a facially plausible claim by pleading factual content from which the Court can reasonably infer that defendants are liable for the alleged misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Plaintiff must show more than a sheer possibility that defendants have acted unlawfully—it is not enough to plead facts that are "merely consistent with" defendants’ liability. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). A pleading which offers labels and conclusions, a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement will not stand. Id. Similarly, where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the Court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the pleading has alleged—but has not "shown"—that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The degree of specificity necessary to establish plausibility and fair notice depends on context because what constitutes fair notice under Rule 8(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., depends on the type of case. Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008).

When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court does not analyze potential evidence that the parties might produce or resolve factual disputes.

Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 2002). The Court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true and views them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. For Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999).

Factual Background

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges the following:

Antonia Douglass is a resident of Garden City, Kansas. First Amended Complaint (Doc. #34), ¶ 7. For more than 25 years, she has been an active participant in GCCC programs and events, a host mom for GCCC student athletes, a volunteer for the GCCC Endowment Association and a booster for the Broncbusters Athletic Association, an athletic fundraising organization. Id., ¶¶ 7, 119. Starting in 2017, individuals began to share concerns with Douglass about GCCC's past and ongoing treatment of female students, in particular cheer coach Brice Knapp's inappropriate behavior toward female cheer squad members. Id., ¶¶ 117, 150. Douglass privately reached out to GCCC administrators and encouraged students, parents and others to report their Title IX concerns to GCCC through the appropriate channels. Id. She also offered to deliver their messages to the GCCC Board of Trustees ("the Board") "to substantiate the depth and breadth of the problems." Id. When GCCC administrators and the Trustees failed to take action, Douglass came to believe that their concerns were falling on deaf ears and that GCCC was intentionally scuttling any complaints. Id., ¶ 118.

On or about February 23, 2018, Douglass received an urgent text message from Elizabeth Everett, a GCCC cheer squad member. Id., ¶¶ 7, 36. Everett asked Douglass to quickly come to the office of GCCC Athletic Director ("AD") John Green. Id., ¶ 36. Everett recently had made informal reports that (1) from the fall of 2017 through the spring of 2018, Coach Knapp had sexually harassed her and (2) in February of 2018, a fellow cheer squad member Henry Arenas blackmailed her and demanded that she perform sexual acts with him or he would publicly release a compromising party picture of her. Id., ¶¶ 39, 43. In response, AD Green had called Everett into his office for an impromptu meeting where he, Coach Knapp and Arenas aggressively confronted her and tried to convince her that her informal reports were wrong because none of their actions were "offensive, inappropriate or amounted to sexual harassment." Id., ¶¶ 36–37, 40, 43. Everett quickly realized that the meeting was an "unsanctioned Title IX hearing" and a preemptive measure to tamp down her informal reports. Id., ¶¶ 39, 44. Feeling intimidated, Everett texted Douglass for help. Id., ¶¶ 7, 40.

Douglass arrived on campus and went to AD Green's office. Id., ¶ 48. The assistant AD met her outside of AD Green's door. Id. Douglass explained that Everett had sent her an urgent text message and asked her to come to the meeting. Id. The assistant AD stalled for time and blocked the entrance. Id. Douglass grew increasingly concerned, believing that "there was something to hide" and that staff was actively covering up how Everett was being treated in the meeting. Id., ¶ 49. She finally told the assistant AD "to step aside or she would call law enforcement based on Everett's plea, because something was wrong." Id., ¶ 50. When Douglass entered the office, she found Everett curled up in a chair in the corner, cowering in fear and surrounded by AD Green, Coach Knapp and Arenas. Id., ¶ 51. Everett was relieved to see Douglass and left with her shortly thereafter. Id., ¶ 52.

After this incident, Douglass encouraged Everett to tell Everett's mother about the cheer squad's sexual harassment issues. Id., ¶¶ 56–59. Douglass also decided that because GCCC leadership had ignored her past concerns, she had no choice but to go public in support of the Title IX victims. Id., ¶¶ 53, 151. On April 10, 2018, at a Board meeting, Douglass spoke during the public comment portion. Id., ¶¶ 84–88. Douglass stated that GCCC employees were subjecting Everett and other female athletes in the cheer program to "unwelcome, improper sex discrimination." Id., ¶ 90. As evidence, she presented letters from seven women or their parents addressing sex discrimination involving Coach Knapp. Id. She asked the Trustees to rectify the sex discrimination problems at GCCC, but they appeared unreceptive and indifferent. Id., ¶¶ 84–88, 90. At some point, the local newspaper publicized stories about the cheer scandal, and GCCC eventually severed ties with Coach Knapp. Id., ¶¶ 93, 105.

GCCC and the Board soon started to retaliate against Douglass for supporting Title IX victims. Id., ¶¶ 53, 91. One day in particular while on campus, Douglass was participating in a letter of intent signing and speaking about the Title IX allegations when GCCC employee Leslie Wenzel interrupted her and "rudely and abruptly whirled around, turning her back on [her]." Id., ¶ 154. On April 25, 2018, without prior warning, the GCCC Campus Chief of Police Rodney Dozier and an unknown Garden City Police Department ("GCPD") officer served Douglass with a No Trespass Notice ("Notice") banning her from campus. Id., ¶¶ 124–25. As the basis for the Notice, Chief Dozier cited the exchange with Wenzel. Id., ¶ 156. Douglass believed that GCCC issued the Notice "to intimidate and harass her, to surprise her, and to deter further comments by her and others who had spoken up at the [Board] meeting in support of female students who were being sexually harassed in violation of Title IX." Id., ¶ 125. She believed that President Herbert Swender initiated the Notice. Id., ¶ 126.

Douglass asked the Trustees to revoke the Notice, especially because its timing prevented her from attending GCCC's graduation ceremony and other important...