Luskin v. The Univ. of Md., Coll. Park

JAMIE LUSKIN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 8:20-cv-02393-PX

United States District Court, D. Maryland

July 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Paula Xinis, United States District Judge

Pending before the Court in this sex discrimination action is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant University of Maryland, College Park (“the University”). ECF No. 21. Plaintiff Jamie Luskin, a graduate student, contends that the University is liable for failing to respond adequately to a fellow student's harassment aimed at her in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. (“Title IX”). Finding no hearing necessary, and for the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. See D. Md. Loc. R. 105.6.

I. Background^[1]

Jamie Luskin enrolled in the Chemical Physics Ph.D. program at the University in the fall of 2017. ECF No. 21-9 at 7. As part of a highly specialized interdisciplinary program, Luskin was placed with a small cohort of five classmates, including the male student who harassed her, C.H. Id. Because this suit centrally concerns the University's response to Luskin's complaints about C.H., the Court first describes the three interconnected departments that handle incidents of student misconduct, and next details Luskin's interactions with C.H. that triggered the departments' involvement.

A. University Departments That Handle Misconduct Complaints

The University receives and responds to student misconduct complaints through three interrelated departments: the “BETA Team,” the Office of Student Conduct (“OSC”), and the Office of Civil Rights and Sexual Misconduct (“OCRSM”). See ECF Nos. 21-8 at 5; 21-3 at 3; 21-7 at 2-3. The University also has its own campus police department. See ECF Nos. 21-3 at 11; 21-4 at 4. Typically, all complaints are first routed through the BETA Team, which is tasked primarily with evaluating a complaint and then directing it to the proper department for follow up investigation. ECF No. 21-5 at 11; see also ECF No. 21-8 at 5-6. The BETA Team includes representatives from the University Police Department, the OSC, the Counseling Center, and Mental Health Services. ECF No. 21-8 at 5.

Once the BETA Team receives a complaint, it assesses the nature and severity of the situation and decides whether the matter is best handled by another University department, or whether the Team can address the matter with a simple phone call or student welfare check. ECF Nos. 21-8 at 7-8; 21-5 at 11. If further attention is required, the BETA Team often refers the matter to the OSC or OCRSM. See ECF No. 21-5 at 11.

The OSC handles all student incidents that potentially violate the University of Maryland Code of Student Conduct. ECF Nos. 21-5 at 5; 21-7 at 2; 21-3 at 10. Accordingly, it receives complaints for everything from academic or honor code violations to interpersonal conflicts between students. See ECF Nos. 21-5 at 5; 21-7 at 2-3. Notably, the OSC is the only department at the University with authority to hold students accountable for misconduct and issue no-contact orders. See ECF Nos. 21-5 at 6-7; 21-7 at 2; see also ECF No. 21-6 at 10. The OSC issues final decisions about whether a student violated the Code of Student Conduct only after seeking review and recommendation from a separate disciplinary panel. ECF Nos. 21-5 at 10-11; 21-7 at 7-12.

The OCRSM focuses more narrowly on complaints involving sexual misconduct or discrimination. ECF No. 21-3 at 10. The department includes two dedicated Title IX investigators, and the head of the OCRSM also acts as the University's Title IX Officer. ECF No. 21-6 at 6. When the OCRSM receives a complaint, an intake specialist first screens it to ascertain whether it involves sex-based misconduct or discrimination. See id. If in the OCRSM's view the complaint does not fall within these parameters, the OCRSM refers the matter to the OSC to handle. Id. The Title IX Officer ultimately decides whether a matter remains with the OCRSM or is referred elsewhere. See id.

B. C.H.'s Conduct Toward Luskin and the University's Response

Luskin first met C.H. in the spring of 2017 at a new students' orientation. ECF No. 21-9 at 8-9. At the time, C.H. appeared “quiet” and “withdrawn.” Id. at 9. The two barely interacted during the orientation. Likewise, during the fall semester, Luskin and C.H. spent very little time together, even though they shared office space and had a class in common. Id.

In the beginning of 2018, however, the nature of their interactions changed. On February 13, 2018, Luskin and three other students-Eli Mizrachi, Jessie Hankes, and Donny Pearson- were talking in the graduate student lounge. ECF No. 21-9 at 11. The group spontaneously laughed at an image on Luskin's computer just as C.H. was passing by the lounge. ECF Nos. 221; 38 at 3; 21-9 at 11-12; 21-4 at 4. C.H. quickly became “very violent.” ECF Nos. 21-9 at 11; 30-2 at 4. He started punching the wall and “screaming vulgarities” at the group, demanding to know why they were laughing. ECF Nos. 21-9 at 11; 22-1. The group tried to explain that they were not laughing at C.H., but he was inconsolable. The group eventually closed the lounge door and remained locked inside until C.H. departed. ECF Nos. 21-9 at 11; 22-1.

Luskin, Mizrachi, Hankes, and Pearson immediately alerted the University to C.H.'s troubling behavior. Mizrachi submitted a formal report to the BETA Team that described C.H.'s strange outburst. ECF No. 22-2. BETA Team Case Manager, Maria Lonsbury, acknowledged receipt of the report by email, adding, “Let's hope this was just an atypical outburst on his part.” Id. at 3. In response to the report, the BETA Team checked its records on C.H. to determine whether any other student had reported alarming conduct by C.H. ECF No. 21-8 at 6. The BETA Team also contacted C.H.'s professors to learn whether the student had behaved strangely in other contexts. From this, the BETA Team concluded it would monitor the situation for any potential escalation. ECF Nos. 21-11 at 5; 21-9 at 15; 21-8 at 6. No one reached out to C.H. directly to discuss the outburst, and no further action was taken. ECF No. 21-11 at 5.

The next incident between Luskin and C.H. occurred on April 12, 2018, in the office space that Luskin and C.H. shared. As Luskin was gathering her belongings to leave for the day, C.H. confronted Luskin about why she was “excluding” him from their cohort. ECF No. 30-2 at 5. C.H. was “very angry” and was “fixating” on the notion that Luskin's exclusion of him was intentional. Id. at 5-6. Luskin tried to apologize and diffuse the situation, but C.H. responded repeatedly that it was “too late.” Id. Although by Luskin's account, C.H. did not make any sexual advances or insinuate he wanted to date her, he nonetheless made her uncomfortable and afraid in the way he expressed an entitlement to her attention. Id. at 6. The encounter lasted only a few minutes before Luskin left. Id. Afterward, C.H. texted Luskin to ask that she not share this exchange with any other student. ECF No. 22-2.

In short order, Luskin and Mizrachi again reached out to the University about C.H. Mizrachi alerted the BETA Team that C.H. was “still in distress,” as evident from the April 12th encounter. ECF No. 22-2 at 2. Mizrachi expressed his “significant concern” because “[C.H.] appears to irrationally think we've formed a high school-like clique where we make fun of him.” Id.

Mizrachi and Luskin together also contacted Peter Shawhan, the Physics Department Chair, to alert him of the situation and ask for help. ECF Nos. 22-3; 21-4 at 4; 21-9 at 13. Shawhan suggested that Luskin be reassigned to a different office space away from C.H., which the University eventually helped to coordinate. ECF Nos. 21-9 at 14-15; 22-3. Luskin also contacted multiple faculty members and followed up with the BETA Team, through Lonsbury, to see what steps the department had taken. ECF No. 21-9 at 13-14.

Following the April 12th encounter, Luskin attests that she was “flooded” with text messages from C.H., although the record does not quite reflect such a “flood.” ECF Nos. 30-2 at 8; 21-9 at 15; see ECF Nos. 22-5; 22-6.^[2] The record is also not clear on how C.H. obtained her phone number. Compare ECF No. 22-5 at 13 (Luskin texting C.H. that she “felt inclined to reach out and give you my number since we were both new and getting oriented”) with ECF No. 21-9 at 14 (“I didn't give it to him.”). In any event, Luskin explains that she engaged in the text exchange with C.H after having tried to “get some guidance from Maria Lonsbury,” regarding C.H. ECF No. 21-9 at 15. But after Luskin received no useful advice, she decided she “had nothing to lose” by engaging C.H. in a text exchange. ECF Nos. 38 at 3; 21-9 at 15.

In the text conversation, C.H. confronted Luskin about ignoring him expressing frustration that Luskin had always been “standoffish” and had given him “little attention.” ECF No. 22-5 at 10. In response, Luskin apologized to C.H. for unintentionally making him feel excluded. Id. at 13-17. Despite Luskin's apologies, C.H. continued, demanding to know whether Luskin remembered giving him her phone number. Id. at 13. C.H. also accused her of “mistaking [him] for another guy,” adding “[i]t must be hard to keep track when there seem[] to be so many trying to get your attention.” Id. Next, C.H. commented that he and Luskin wear similar rings on their index fingers which “can't just be a coincidence.” Id. at 17. Luskin dismissed the notion and responded that she was in a relationship and not interested in anyone else. Id. at 18. C.H. mused in response if that is why she had been “standoffish,” and asked whether her boyfriend is a...