Benefield ex rel. Benefield v. Board of Trustees

• Decision Date: 22 July 2002
• Docket Number: No. CV-02-J-734-S.,CV-02-J-734-S.
• Citation: 214 F.Supp.2d 1212
• Parties: Brittany BENEFIELD, a minor, suing By and Through her mother, Jacqueline BENEFIELD, Plaintiff, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

214 F.Supp.2d 1212

Brittany BENEFIELD, a minor, suing By and Through her mother, Jacqueline BENEFIELD, Plaintiff, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM, Defendant.

No. CV-02-J-734-S.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

July 22, 2002.

John F. Whitaker, Sadler Sullivan, PC, Birmingham, AL, Terrence F. Dytrych, PA, North Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff.

W. Stancil Starnes, Laura H. Peck, Starnes & Atchison, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.

Alice H. Martin, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, Michael Maurer, Ralph F. Boyd, U.S. Department of Justice — Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, for Movant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This case comes before the court on the defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 5) and motion to strike claim for punitive damages (doc. 6). The court held a hearing on these motions on May 29, 2002 at which both parties were present and represented by their respective counsel. The court heard arguments and has considered the pending motions, the argument and the memoranda of law submitted by the parties.

Because this case is before the court on the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court takes the material factual allegations of the complaint as true.¹ See e.g., Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322, 325, 111 S.Ct. 1842, 114 L.Ed.2d 366 (1991).

I. Factual Background

Based on the material factual allegations of the complaint, the court finds the facts of this case to be as follows:

The minor plaintiff ("plaintiff") began to attend the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) when she was fifteen years old, pursuant to an academic scholarship awarded to her by UAB. Complaint at ¶¶ 9, 12, 19. Prior to her enrollment, the plaintiff and her parents met with Warren Hale (Hale), the Director of Student Housing and Residential Life, and Susan McKinnon (McKinnon), Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management, seeking assurance that the plaintiff would receive "special treatment," be watched, and that UAB would provide additional care and protection due to her age. Complaint at ¶ 14. Additionally, the plaintiff's mother inquired whether McKinnon and Hale would contact her if problems arose, and was assured that they would. Complaint at ¶ 15. The plaintiff was informed that she would be housed in Rast Hall and one of her suite mates would be a resident assistant (RA). Complaint at ¶ 16.

During her first quarter of college, the plaintiff achieved a grade point average (GPA) of 3.5. Complaint at ¶ 21. However, sometime in July, 2000, the plaintiff was moved to Blazer Hall, without an RA roommate. There was no monitoring of students by UAB.² Complaint at ¶¶ 22, 28. Many football and basketball players also resided in Blazer Hall and initiated conversations with the plaintiff. Complaint at ¶¶ 22, 23. The plaintiff was given beer by football players, which rapidly escalated into the plaintiff becoming the football players "play thing" and was sexually exploited by them and basketball players.³ Complaint at ¶¶ 24, 25. She further alleges that UAB was aware of illegal drinking, but took no actions to prevent it. Complaint at ¶ 24. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges the UAB football staff, campus police, and school officials were aware of her behavior, but failed to take any action. Complaint at ¶¶ 26, 27.

In August, 2000, the plaintiff was called into a meeting with Hale, Rachel Smith who was the Residence Life Coordinator, and Sergeant Forsyth, a UAB police officer. Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 28; exhibit B to complaint. She was questioned about her sexual activities, but she denied any such behavior, stating that these were just rumors. Complaint at ¶ 28; exhibit B to complaint. Virginia Gauld, Ph.D., Vice President of Student Affairs, contacted plaintiff's parents due to her concern about the plaintiff hosting guests in her room, to which the plaintiff's mother stated the plaintiff could "host any guest she wanted (male or female) because she trusted [plaintiff's] judgment." Exhibit B to complaint. No further action was taken. Complaint at ¶ 28.

Plaintiff alleges that shortly thereafter, Hale told a UAB assistant football coach, Larry Crowe, of what he knew and of possible liability of the football players due to the plaintiff's age. Complaint at ¶ 29. Thereafter, the UAB head football coach, Watson Brown, instructed his players to stay away from the plaintiff. Complaint at ¶ 29. However, the plaintiff's parents were not informed of the plaintiff's sexual exploits and at this time, UAB took no further action to protect the plaintiff. Complaint at ¶¶ 29, 31.

The plaintiff continued to consume alcoholic beverages provided by UAB football and basketball players. Complaint at ¶ 33, 36. She also began smoking marijuana, similarly supplied, in her dormitory room. Complaint at ¶¶ 33, 35. The plaintiff alleges that the resident assistants were aware of the drinking, drugs and sexual activities of the plaintiff. Complaint at ¶ 33. The plaintiff began using cocaine, ecstasy and LSD as well. Complaint at ¶ 36.

In September, 2000, school officials again met with the plaintiff to discuss curfew. Complaint at ¶ 37. She was again asked about sexual activity with the UAB football players, and the plaintiff "assured" them it was not true.⁴ Complaint at ¶ 37. After plaintiff's assurances to the defendant that the rumors were not true, the school did not investigate these rumors further.⁵ Complaint at ¶¶ 37-39. The plaintiff's grades fell to a 1.9 GPA and she stopped attending her classes. Complaint at ¶ 42. She began using her rent and meal money to finance her addictions. Complaint at ¶ 44. Although she received eviction notices in November, 2000, her parents were not notified. Complaint at ¶ 44. This was in spite of the fact that the plaintiff's mother had signed her lease. Complaint ¶ 20.

In mid-December, 2000, the plaintiff's mother became aware of the plaintiff's activities when she went to UAB to pick up the plaintiff. Complaint at ¶ 47. The plaintiff alleges that her mother "received a return call from a man who identified himself as a UAB policeman." Complaint at ¶ 48. This individual informed the plaintiff's mother that the plaintiff had broken curfew, her GPA was 1.9, she had not been attending class, and drug paraphernalia was found in her room. Complaint at ¶¶ 48-49.

Upon her return home, the plaintiff was placed by her parents in an adolescent rehabilitation center, where she spent 22 days. Complaint at ¶ 50. The plaintiff alleges that "all of the above actions and deliberate indifference to sexual harassment was (sic) so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it (sic) deprived [her] of access to educational opportunities."⁶ Complaint at ¶ 57. The plaintiff alleges these facts constitute sexual harassment, of which UAB was aware and failed to take reasonable steps to end such harassment.⁷ Complaint at ¶¶ 58-59. The plaintiff demands 20 million dollars in compensatory damages and another 20 million dollars in punitive damages for the alleged discrimination which she suffered. Complaint at ¶ 65.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Title IX

The sole issue which the court considers on the defendant's motion to dismiss is whether the above allegations, when taken as true, constitute a violation of Title IX, for which the plaintiff may recover damages from the defendant.⁸ See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). If these facts do not constitute a claim under Title IX, defendant's motion to dismiss is due to be granted.⁹

Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 states:

(a) Prohibition against discrimination

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. ...

(c) "Educational institution" defined

For purposes of this chapter an educational institution means any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any institution of vocational, professional, or higher education, except that in the case of an educational institution composed of more than one school, college, or department which are administratively separate units, such term means each such school, college, or department.

A. Sovereign Immunity

The defendant argues, inter alia, that it has sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment from an action of this sort. Defendant's memorandum at 5. Congress has directly spoken to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits under Title IX, in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7. That section of the United States Code states as follows:

(a) General provision

(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal Court for a violation of ... title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972....

(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State.

The court finds that the constitutionality of the abrogation of immunity has been considered and upheld by numerous courts.¹⁰ See Davis v. Monroe County. 526 U.S. 629, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999); Pederson v. Louisiana State University, 213 F.3d 858, 875-76 (5th Cir. 2000); Litman v. George Mason University, 186 F.3d 544, 554 (4th Cir.1999); Beasley v. Alabama State University, 3 F.Supp.2d 1304, 1316 (M.D.Ala.1998); Thorpe v. Virginia State University, 6 F.Supp.2d 507 (E.D.Va.1998).

B. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.Pro.

Finding that Title IX, as applied to the states in cases of sexual harassment, is constitutional, the court next considers defendant's argument that, under the facts of this case, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.Pro.; defendant memorandum at 8-11...