Sigma Lambda Upsilon/Señoritas Latinas Unidas Sorority, Inc. v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.

• Citation: 503 F.Supp.3d 433
• Decision Date: 30 November 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:18CV00085
• Parties: SIGMA LAMBDA UPSILON/SEÑORITAS LATINAS UNIDAS SORORITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

503 F.Supp.3d 433

SIGMA LAMBDA UPSILON/SEÑORITAS LATINAS UNIDAS SORORITY, INC., Plaintiff,

v.RECTOR AND VISITORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:18CV00085

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division.

Signed November 30, 2020

James Anthony Granoski, Law Office of James A. Granoski, Alexandria, VA, Sheridan Leigh England, S. L. England, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Barry Todd Meek, University of Virginia/Office of General Counsel, Charlottesville, VA, Sandra Snead Gregor, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, Sheri Hiter Kelly, Office of the Attorney General, Abingdon, VA, for Defendant Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia.

Sandra Snead Gregor, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, Sheri Hiter Kelly, Office of the Attorney General, Abingdon, VA, for Defendants Frank M. Conner, III, Patricia M. Lampkin, J. Marshall Pattie, Edgar Halcott Turner, II, Caroline Ott.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Glen E. Conrad, Senior United States District Judge Sigma Lambda Upsilon/Señoritas Latinas Unidas Sorority, Inc. ("SLU") filed this action against the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia ("UVA"), five named officers or employees of UVA,¹ and ten unnamed officers of UVA,² asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. The case is presently before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by UVA and the named individual defendants. For the reasons stated, the court will grant the motion to dismiss.³

Background

The following facts are taken from the second amended complaint and documents cited therein. See Phillips v. LCI Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that "a court may consider [a document attached to a motion to dismiss] in determining whether to dismiss the complaint" if the document is "integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint" and there is no authenticity challenge).

SLU is a not-for-profit corporation that operates as a Latina-based sorority. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 36. SLU has chapters at over 50 colleges and universities, including UVA. Id. One of its "core associative goals is to develop academically successful members who will develop into public and private leaders." Id. ¶ 21.

In early 2018, SLU took part in the "rushing" process at UVA, during which it recruited female students ("Hermanas") to join SLU. Id. ¶ 13. "One of SLU's core requirements for rushing is that Hermanas adhere to SLU's policies governing conduct for its members." Id. ¶ 16. "As relevant here, one such policy is that students study for academic courses for at least 25 hours per week." Id. ¶ 17. SLU alleges that this policy furthers its core associative goal of developing academically successful members. Id. ¶ 20.

On February 14, 2018, UVA officials began investigating SLU for hazing after "an Hermana allegedly complained to a UVA educator about the burdens of being a new UVA student and pledging for a sorority." Id. ¶ 22–23. Hazing "is prohibited by University policy and the University Standards of Conduct." Record Policy 2017-2018 at 1, Mot. Dismiss Ex. 1, ECF No. 39-1. UVA defines "hazing" as follows:

[A]ny action taken or situated created by a member or members of a student organization toward one or more organization members or prospective members in connection with initiation, admission, affiliation, or ongoing membership in the organization when the action or situation:

A. Occurs on University-owned or leased property or at University-sponsored or supervised functions or at the local residence of any University student, faculty member, or employee, and

B. Is designed to produce or does produce mental or physical harassment, humiliation, fatigue, degradation, ridicule, shock or injury.

Id.

The hazing investigation included interviews of several Hermanas. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 30. Although the investigation allegedly uncovered "no evidence of any physical [or mental] harm done to any Hermana by SLU," the defendants issued an "Outcome Letter" finding SLU responsible for violating the hazing policy. Id. ¶¶ 33, 50–51. SLU maintains that the defendants based the hazing finding on the sorority's 25-hour weekly study requirement and their evaluation of the perceived credibility of the Hermanas interviewed during the investigation. Id. ¶¶ 36, 40; see also Outcome Letter at 2, Mot. Dismiss Ex. 2, ECF No. 39-2 ("All new members expressed emotional stress as a result of struggling to meet the time demands of the SLU new member process .... Based on the evidence obtained from written statements, and an evaluation of the perceived credibility of the relevant Sigma Lambda Upsilon witnesses, the investigators do find Sigma Lambda Upsilon responsible for violating the University's hazing policy.").

As a result of the hazing investigation, the defendants suspended SLU on March 1, 2018. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 59; Outcome Letter at 2. The suspension has since been lifted, and SLU has been allowed to resume activities on campus. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 62. In order to be reinstated, SLU agreed—allegedly "under duress"—to modify its new member education program and eliminate the 25-hour weekly study requirement. Id. SLU remains free to recommend that new members devote 25 hours per week to academic study time. See Articles of the New Member Education Program at 1, Mot. Dismiss Ex. 3, ECF No. 39-3. Nonetheless, SLU seeks to reinstate the mandatory hourly requirement. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 63.

In the instant action, SLU maintains that the defendants’ enforcement of the hazing policy was discriminatory, pointing to activities permitted by UVA. For example, SLU notes that "UVA's top-grossing men[’s] sport programs, including men's football and basketball, often require time commitments of their students in excess of 25 hours per week" and that "certain courses and academic programs offered at UVA require more than 25 hours of study per week to complete the courses and academic programs satisfactorily." Id. ¶¶ 44, 47. SLU alleges, on information and belief, that "UVA has never made a hazing finding against its profit-generating sports programs" despite the harms suffered by student athletes. Id. ¶ 58. SLU further alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants have "allowed non-female fraternal organizations to continue operating even when more serious (i.e. actual) hazing incidents occurred." Id. ¶ 68.

Procedural History

SLU filed the instant action on September 17, 2018, naming UVA as the sole defendant. UVA responded with a motion to dismiss. SLU then moved to amend the complaint within the time permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The court granted the motion to amend on January 8, 2019. The first amended complaint, which was deemed filed as of that date, added five named individual defendants, ten John and Jane Doe defendants, and three new counts.

Thereafter, the parties engaged in discovery and filed various discovery motions. During a telephonic hearing on the discovery motions, "the parties represented to the court that the nature of the parties’ dispute had changed." Nov. 19, 2019 Order at 1, ECF No. 34. The parties informed the court that UVA had lifted SLU's suspension during the course of the litigation, subject to conditions, and that SLU "objects to certain of those conditions, alleging that they violate [its] rights." Id. In light of the parties’ representations, the court entered an order taking the discovery motions under advisement and directing SLU to file an amended complaint.

On December 6, 2019, SLU filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, which contains five counts. The first two counts are federal constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Count 1, SLU claims that the defendants violated, and continue to violate, its First Amendment rights to free speech and expressive association by suspending SLU for hazing and then conditioning its reinstatement on the elimination of the 25-hour weekly study requirement. In Count 2, SLU claims that the defendants violated its right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment "[b]y suspending SLU and not other similarly-situated fraternal and male exclusive organizations." 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 80. In Counts 3 and 4, SLU claims that the defendants conspired to violate its civil rights and neglected to prevent such conspiracy, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986. In Count 5, SLU asserts a claim for sex-based discrimination in violation of Title IX. SLU seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

UVA and the named individual defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and argued and is now ripe for disposition.

Standard of Review

Rule 12(b)(1) permits defendants to move for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In this case, the jurisdictional challenge is based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Cunningham v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 888 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding that sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar). The burden of proving entitlement to sovereign immunity rests with the entity or individual seeking immunity. Hutto v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 773 F.3d 536, 543 (4th Cir. 2014). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is appropriate "if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999).

Rule 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to move for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When deciding a motion to dismiss under this rule, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff's...