Jane Doe v. Univ. of Miami

446 F.Supp.3d 1000

Jane DOE, Plaintiff,

v.UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Defendant.

Case No. 17-23408-CIV-GAYLES/LOUIS

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed March 5, 2020

Brittany Nicole Henderson, Bradley James Edwards, Edwards Pottinger LLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff.

Eric David Isicoff, Teresa Ragatz, Christopher Michael Yannuzzi, Isicoff Ragatz, Miami, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER

DARRIN P. GAYLES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 71] and Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment [ECF No. 75] (the "Motions"). The Court has reviewed the Motions and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, Doe's Motion is denied and Defendant's Motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND¹

A. Events Giving Rise to the Action

Plaintiff Jane Doe and R.K.² met as undergraduate students at the University of Miami ("Defendant" or "University") during the fall of 2012, and began dating the following spring. [Def.'s SUMF, ¶ 3]. On August 21, 2013, Doe invited R.K. and some of her friends to her off-campus apartment for a small party. [Id. , ¶ 9]. During the party, while Doe and R.K. were alone in Doe's bedroom, R.K. sexually assaulted Doe. [Id. , ¶ 11]. Doe left the bedroom, told her friends what happened, and later fell asleep in the living room. [Id. ]. After everyone left Doe's apartment the next morning, Doe went to R.K.'s on-campus dorm room and broke up with him. [Id. , ¶ 12]. On September 1, 2013, R.K. went to Doe's apartment uninvited, acting "obnoxious" and "aggressive" and "banging on walls" ("September 1 incident"). [Id. , ¶ 15]. On September 11, 2013, Doe met with Oscar M. Vazquez, Jr. ("Mr. Vazquez") (R.K.'s resident hall supervisor) and reported the September 1 incident and her concerns that R.K. may harm himself. [Id. , ¶ 17].

Doe again encountered R.K. at a fraternity party on September 13, 2013 ("Fraternity Party"). [Id. , ¶ 19]. At the party, R.K. pushed Doe, causing her to stumble and to brace herself against the DJ table. [Id. ]. Fraternity brothers had to physically subdue R.K. to remove him from the party. [Pl.'s CSMF, ¶ 19]. The next day, Doe told Mr. Vazquez about R.K.'s behavior at the Fraternity Party. [Def.'s SUMF, ¶ 20]. Mr. Vazquez immediately relayed the information to his supervisor, Ivan Ceballos, who then shared Doe's concerns with Associate Dean of Students, William Anthony Lake ("Dean Lake"). [Id. ]. That same day, Mr. Vazquez told R.K. over the phone and over email that R.K. was prohibited from having any contact with Doe "under any circumstances" ("No Contact Order" or "NCO"³ ). [Id. ].

B. Defendant's Response

1. Title IX Investigation

On September 16, 2013, Doe met with Dean Lake and Assistant Dean of Students Nicole Abramson ("Dean Abramson") to report R.K.'s assault, the September 1 incident, and the Fraternity Party. [Id. , ¶ 21 & Pl.'s CSMF, ¶ 21]. Dean Lake told Doe that he would begin an investigation into her claims and that an NCO had been issued to R.K, which instructed him not to contact her. [Def.'s SUMF, ¶ 21]. That same day, Dean Lake opened a Title IX investigation and emailed the following officials to inform them of the new case and of Doe's allegations: (1) Dean of Students, Ricardo Hall, Defendant's official responsible for mitigation and sanctioning ("Dean Hall"), and (2) Vice President of Student Affairs, Patricia Whitley, Defendant's designated Title IX appellate officer ("Dr. Whitley"). [Pl.'s CSMF, ¶ 21].

Three days later, Dean Hall met with R.K. to discuss Doe's allegations. [Def.'s SUMF, ¶ 25]. Dean Hall found that suspending R.K. was not appropriate at that time and reiterated to R.K. that he was prohibited from having any contact with Doe. [Id. ]. Dean Lake conducted his investigation over the next couple of months; he interviewed Doe several times, as well as R.K., and Doe's two friends who were present the night of the assault, and he collected witness testimonies and evidence of communication between Doe and R.K. [Id. , ¶¶ 26, 28]. Doe and R.K. sometimes failed to promptly respond to Dean Lake's requests for documents, and Dean Lake was still receiving documents as late as early December. [Id. , ¶¶ 28, 36].

On December 4, 2013, Doe told Deans Lake and Abramson that although she and R.K. had "very rarely crossed paths" over the semester, she had started to see him more often after Thanksgiving break. [Id. , ¶ 31]. Four days later, Doe again emailed the Deans to tell them that R.K. had been asking their mutual friends about whether Doe was attending an upcoming party. [Id. , ¶ 32]. Dean Hall immediately met with R.K. to investigate Doe's concerns and again restated to R.K. that he was prohibited from having any contact with Doe. [Id. , ¶ 33]. Soon after Dean Hall's meeting with R.K., Dean Lake also met with R.K., determined that he had not been following Doe, and emailed those findings to Doe. [Id. ].

2. R.K.'s Disciplinary Hearing and Sanctions

On November 26, 2013, the University advised Doe that R.K.s Major Disciplinary Hearing (the "Hearing") would be held on December 10, 2013. [Id. , ¶ 30]. Defendant charged R.K. with five violations of the University's Student Code of Conduct based on his sexual assault of Doe, the September 1 incident, and the Fraternity Party. [Id. , ¶ 34]. R.K. pled "Not Responsible" to two charges: (1) Relationship and/or Intimate Partner Violence and (2) Sexual Assault and/or Battery. [Id. ]. In the days leading up the Hearing, Doe and Dean Lake exchanged several emails about the Hearing procedure and about documents for the Hearing. [Id. , ¶ 35]. The day before the Hearing, Doe sent Dean Lake, for the first time, screenshots of some Facebook messages between her and R.K. [Id. ]. At the Hearing, Doe, R.K., and Doe's two friends testified, and Dean Lake presented his findings. [Id. , ¶ 37]. The University panel found R.K. "Responsible" for both charges. [Id. , ¶ 37]. On December 12, 2013, Dean Lake advised Doe that if she started seeing R.K. more frequently, she should let him know and he would address it immediately. [Id. , ¶ 38].

On December 13, 2013, Dean Hall met with Doe about R.K.'s potential sanctions, and Doe requested that R.K. be expelled from the University. [Id. , ¶ 39]. Three days later, Dean Hall informed Doe that the University had expelled R.K. with no right to future readmission. [Id. , ¶ 40]. The next day, local law enforcement arrested R.K. on campus. [Pl.'s CSMF, ¶ 41]. The day after R.K.'s arrest, Defendant issued a trespass warning against R.K. [Def.'s SUMF, ¶ 41]. In April 2014, Dr. Whitley denied R.K.'s sanctions appeal, upheld his expulsion, and informed Doe of the same. [Id. , ¶ 51].

3. Doe's Accommodations

After Doe reported R.K.'s behavior on September 16, 2013, Doe separately met with Dean Abramson and told her that she was feeling overwhelmed with classes and was concerned about her grades. [Id. , ¶ 22.]. Two days later, Dean Abramson emailed Doe's professors to advise that Doe was "managing a very difficult personal/legal matter which [wa]s impacting her ability to focus and ha[d] also impacted her attendance" and that Doe would be "following up with each of [them] directly" to discuss potential make-up work. [Id. ]. Throughout the fall of 2013, Dean Abramson spoke with Doe multiple times about her options related to coursework and grades and recommended that Doe seek counseling. [Id. , ¶¶ 23, 24]. When Doe asked Dean Abramson about the process for taking "Incompletes," Dean Abramson explained the process, encouraged Doe to speak directly to her professors, and immediately emailed Doe's professors to tell them that Doe "continued to struggle" and that she may be in contact about taking "Incompletes." [Id. , ¶¶ 45, 46].

When Doe returned to the University during the fall of 2014 after a medical leave of absence, she emailed her Fall 2013 professors to make up coursework and exams. [Id. , ¶ 56]. Doe was permitted to complete her Fall 2013 coursework until as late as May 2017, two years after she graduated on time in May 2015. [Id. , ¶ 57]. Upon completion of her coursework, Doe's "Incompletes" were changed to letter grades. [Id. , ¶ 56]. Doe never requested disability accommodations through the University's Office of Disability Services ("ODS"), notwithstanding knowing that Defendant's published procedures required anyone seeking disability accommodations to do so. [Id. , ¶ 58]. Defendant disputes Doe's claims that Dean Abramson told Doe that she was unable to get disability accommodations because "being raped did not entitle her to any kind of special accommodation." [Pl.'s CSMF ¶ 23 & Def.'s RSMF ¶ 23].

C. Procedural History

On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff brought this Title IX action, alleging three counts against Defendant: (1) discrimination in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) ("Title IX"); (2) retaliation in violation of Title IX; and (3) violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 (the "Rehabilitation Act"). [ECF No. 1]. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the University was deliberately indifferent to her reports of sexual assault and harassment, retaliated against her for such reports, and failed to provide her reasonable disability accommodations.

On March 12, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's First Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9], and Doe filed an Amended Complaint on March 20, 2018 [ECF No. 30]. On April 3, 2018, Defendant filed its Second Motion to Dismiss, which the Court denied on December 4, 2018 [ECF No. 46]. On November 21, 2019, Doe filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, seeking summary judgment on Count 1 based on Defendant's alleged discrimination in violation of Title IX. [ECF No. 71]. On December 2, 2019, Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, seeking summary judgment as to all counts. [ECF No. 75]. The Motions are ripe for review.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), "is...