Schultzen v. Woodbury Central Community School

187 F.Supp.2d 1099

April Marie SCHULTZEN, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WOODBURY CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Larry Bumsted, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendants.

No. C01-4089-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

February 22, 2002.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT WOODBURY CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................1101
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ............................................................1103
    A. Standard Governing 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss ..........................1103
    B. The School District's Motion ...........................................1104
       1. Punitive damages under section 1983 and Chapter 216 .................1104
       2. Availability of punitive damages in general under Title IX ..........1104
       3. Can a prevailing plaintiff recover punitive damages against a
school district under Title IX? ..........................................1109
          a. The common-law tradition of municipal immunity: City of
Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. ..................................1109
          b. Newport's analytical framework: Two-part inquiry .................1109
          c. The common-law tradition of the availability of all remedies
Frankin v. Gwinnett County ......................................1112

d.  Reconciling Franklin with Newport ............................. 1113
e.  District courts' treatment of Title IX, municipal entities, and
      punitive damages: An overview ............................... 1114
f.  Step one: Newport as the starting point ....................... 1122
g.  Step two: Public policy considerations ........................ 1122
h.  Newport as the ending point ................................... 1125
III. CONCLUSION ................................................... 1128

This case presents a fundamental question under Title IX: whether punitive damages are available against a school district for alleged violations of Title IX. No court of appeals has addressed this issue; and, while a handful of district courts have undertaken the task of resolving this question, a consensus has not been reached. The crux of the matter necessitates reconciling two well-established common-law traditions. Under one tradition, local governmental entities are immune from awards of punitive damages. Under the other tradition, once a cause of action has been recognized, any appropriate remedies, including punitive damages, are presumptively available. In order to resolve the question raised in this motion to dismiss, the court must give due weight to these traditions, examine the scant legislative history of Title IX and its predecessor, Title VI, explore the contours of public policy, and ultimately discern congressional intent. In the final analysis, this case presents a "close call," but, in the end, the stronger of the two traditions must prevail, at least until Congress speaks on this issue.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court on defendant Woodbury Central Community School District's Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).¹ In this civil rights action, the plaintiff ("Schultzen") asserts four counts of discrimination. Count I alleges violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., against defendant Woodbury Central Community School District for alleged discriminatory treatment of females in the school system. Count II avers constitutional violations against both defendants, which Schultzen seeks to vindicate vis-a-vis 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count III similarly alleges the defendants violated Schultzen's constitutional rights. However, Count III asserts a state-law claim pursuant to the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Chapter 216. Finally, on behalf of a class of other women against whom the defendants have allegedly discriminated based on their gender, Count IV of Schultzen's complaint requests that this court certify this litigation as a class action.²

Because this motion to dismiss presents purely legal issues, the underlying facts of the litigation are not pertinent. However, in order to contextualize this motion, the court will engage in a brief synopsis of the facts.³

April Marie Schultzen ("Schultzen") was a student-athlete in the Woodbury Central Community School District system. The defendants in this action are the Woodbury Central Community School District ("the school district") and Larry Bumsted ("Bumsted"). Bumsted is employed as a police officer for the City of Moville, Iowa, and Schultzen has sued him in both his individual and official capacities.

On September 9, 2000, defendant Bumsted, a local law enforcement officer, observed Schultzen, who was eighteen years of age at the time, smoking a cigarette at the Conoco convenience store in Moville, Iowa. After inquiring whether Schultzen was involved in any interscholastic athletic activities and learning that Schultzen was a member of the women's volleyball team, Bumsted reported the incident to Mr. Wisniewski, the principal of the Woodbury Central high school. On September 12, 2000, Mr. Wisniewski confronted Schultzen with Bumsted's allegation that he observed her smoking. Because smoking violated the school district's "Good Conduct Code," Schultzen was suspended from all extra-curricular activities for a period of six weeks. The situation worsened for Schultzen when, on September 12, 2000, her mother questioned Mr. Wisniewski about the suspension and was informed that the suspension had been increased to twelve weeks because Schultzen was a repeat offender, having previously violated the school district's Good Conduct Code. The school board affirmed the suspension on September 25, 2000.

In her complaint, Schultzen avers that female athletes are treated more severely for violating the school district's Good Conduct Code than are similarly situated male athletes. Specifically, she contends that male students with similar or worse violations of the Good Conduct Code are treated substantially better than are female students. To support her argument, Schultzen points to the school district's alleged treatment of a male football player. According to Schultzen, the male student violated the Good Conduct Code on three separate occasions. On one occasion in particular, a police officer apprehended this individual for drinking alcohol. The officer issued the student a citation for being a minor in possession of alcohol, but the school board did not suspend him from participating in extra-curricular activities, ostensibly because he was on private property at the time he was caught drinking.

The school district moved to dismiss portions of Schultzen's complaint on the ground that portions of the complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Namely, the school district asserts that Schultzen's punitive damage claims are not cognizable under Title IX, section 1983, nor under Chapter 216 as against the school district. First, the school district contends that it is immune as a matter of law from an award of punitive damages under section 1983. Second, the school district maintains that punitive damages cannot be assessed against governmental entities, including public school districts, under Title IX. And last, the school district asserts that Chapter 216 of the Iowa Civil Rights Act does not provide for the recovery of punitive damages.

Schultzen filed a resistance on November 5, 2001. However, she agreed that punitive damages are not available against defendant Woodbury Central Community School District under either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Chapter 216 of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Schultzen did not, therefore, resist those portions of the defendant's motion.

However, she did resist the defendant's assertion that Title IX does not provide for an award of punitive damages against a public school district because no court of appeals has of this date decided that issue. Schultzen asserts that she has pled sufficient facts to support a finding of ongoing violations by the defendants, which would allow for an award of punitive damages. Accordingly, she requests that the court deny the defendant's motion to dismiss.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Standard Governing 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides:

(b) Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: . . . (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. . . .

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

"A dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law." North Star Internat'l v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir.1983) (citing Yuba Consolidated Gold Fields v. Kilkeary, 206 F.2d 884, 889 (9th Cir.1953)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must "accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff]." Whitmore v. Harrington, 204 F.3d 784, 784 (8th Cir.2000); accord Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972); Anderson v. Franklin County, Mo., 192 F.3d 1125, 1131 (8th Cir.1999); Gross v. Weber, 186 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir.1999); Midwestern Mach. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 167 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir. 1999); Valiant-Bey v. Morris, 829 F.2d 1441, 1443 (8th Cir.1987). A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only if, taking the allegations as true, "it is clear that no...