Dahmer v. W. Ky. Univ.
| Decision Date | 15 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-00124-JHM-LLK |
| Parties | LOANDRIA DAHMER PLAINTIFF v. WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY, et al DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Judge Joseph McKinley referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Lanny King for determination of nondispositive matters, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A)1. (Docket #7).
Plaintiff Loandria Dahmer filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Docket #32), to which Defendants Responded (Docket #34) and Plaintiff Replied. (Docket #35). Also before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Reply. (Docket #36). These matters are now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated below, the Plaintiff's Motion to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion to Strike Reply is DENIED.
Background
This case arises out of allegations of gender-based discrimination experienced by Plaintiff Dahmer during her time at WKU as a student and in her role as Student Government Association ("SGA") President. (Docket #1 at 5). Plaintiff has filed this action against multiple Defendants, including WKU, Timothy Caboni (President of WKU), Andrea Anderson (Title IXCoordinator at WKU), and Charley Pride (SGA Advisor at WKU). (Id. at 1-2). The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to adequately respond to gender-based discrimination suffered by Plaintiff at the hands of other SGA students, as well as staff of WKU. (Id. at 5-13). Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant Pride both failed to address her concerns and actively participated in the environment of gender-based harassment, and that Defendants Caboni and Anderson failed to intervene. (Id.).
On January 29, 2019, Plaintiff Dahmer tendered a Motion to File her First Amended Complaint, in accordance with the Scheduling Order in this case. (Docket #32). As a basis for the filing, Plaintiff contends that new facts have arisen through discovery that allow for additional causes of action against Defendants, particularly a retaliation claim related to a scholarship endorsement purportedly withheld by Defendant Caboni in retaliation for Plaintiff's sexual harassment claims. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff states that no Defendant would be unduly prejudiced by this filing, as discovery has only just begun, and the litigation is in its infancy. (Id.).
Defendants' Response argues three points, one aimed at each amendment sought by Plaintiff. First, Defendants argues that Plaintiff's first amendment seeks to assert claims that she does not have standing to bring. (Docket #34 at 4). Second, Defendants alleges that Plaintiff's second amendment is not supported by evidence. (Id. at 5). Third, Defendants contends that Plaintiff's third amendment would not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and would unduly prejudice Defendants. (Id. at 8).
Plaintiff's Reply focuses on three points, one regarding each proposed amendment. (Docket #35). First, Plaintiff states that she is not trying to bring additional claims via her first proposed amendment, she seeks only to add more factual information. (Id. at 1). Second,Plaintiff asserts that her second amendment is supported by fact, and that Defendants' argument does not present the whole substance of Plaintiff's deposition testimony. (Id. at 2). Third, Plaintiff argues that she has sufficient proof at this stage to allow discovery on the retaliation claim she seeks to assert and that exclusion of the claim does not fit within the results contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 4).
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides the standard for amending pleadings prior to trial. The Supreme Court has held that "leave to amend 'shall be freely given whenever justice so requires' ... If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Court further held that amendment should be "freely given" in the absence of reasons "such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc." Id. The decision whether to permit amendment is within the discretion of the trial court. Goldman Services Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of Paducah,812 F.Supp. 738, 743 (W.D. Ky. 1992); see also General Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990).
Amendment 1: Information Regarding Annalicia Carlson
Plaintiff's first amendment seeks to include information from another SGA Executive Board member, Annalicia Carlson, about her experiences in the WKU SGA. The information alleges that Ms. Carlson also had concerns of sexual harassment, approached Defendant Pride regarding these concerns, and was harassed further by Defendant Pride himself. (Docket #32-2 at12). The amendment also contains allegations from Ms. Carlson that the environment of the WKU SGA was hostile, and that it is believed that Ms. Carlson filed a Title IX complaint regarding Defendant Pride with the WKU Title IX office. (Id.).
Defendants contend that this amendment must fail, because Plaintiff had the ability to present these facts at the time of filing the complaint, the amendment would not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and Plaintiff may not bring claims on behalf of Ms. Carlson, who is a third party. (Docket #34 at 4). Plaintiff replies that she only seeks to amend her complaint to add factual information to the Complaint, which lend credence to her own claims. (Docket #35 at 1). She does not seek to bring claims on behalf of Ms. Carlson. (Id.).
The Court finds this Amendment to be proper under Rule 15. To prove her claim of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility and sex discrimination in SGA at WKU, the Plaintiff must show multiple instances of improper behavior by the Defendants. (Docket #1 at 11-13). Under 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), a party seeking to prove discrimination on the basis of sex must show that her "educational experience was 'permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive [so as] to alter the conditions of the victim's' educational environment." Doe v. Miami University, 882 F.3d 579, 590 (6th Cir. 2018); quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)(internal citations omitted).
There is no evidence that Plaintiff's proposed amendment violates the tenets of Foman or its Sixth Circuit progeny. There is no allegation of undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. Any delay can be attributed to the timeline of discovery. As more information is unearthed, amendment of the Complaint is warranted to fit the evolving factual bases for theallegations. Precedent holds that the standard for amendment is liberal, and the right to amend should be freely granted.
The information provided by Ms. Carlson helps Plaintiff to prove the existence of such an atmosphere. Plaintiff, by her own admission, does not seek to bring claims for Ms. Carlson, which would be barred based on lack of standing. In seeking to prove a pervasive environment of sexual harassment and discrimination, Plaintiff will presumably need to show multiple instances of inappropriate behavior on the part of WKU or its agents. Ms. Carlson's claims help Plaintiff to do so.
Defendants' arguments regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are inapplicable. Rule 12(b)(6) only applies to pleadings that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Here, there is no allegation that the pleadings do not state plausible causes of action. Defendant misapplies the standard in their argument. Again, Plaintiff, by her own admission, do not seek to bring claims on behalf of Ms. Carlson, she seeks to use the similarities of her case to Plaintiff's to show an atmosphere of sexual harassment in SGA at WKU, as is necessary for her Title IX claims.
For these reasons, leave is GRANTED for Plaintiff to file Amendment 1.
Amendment 2: Defendant Anderson's Investigation
Plaintiff's second proposed amendment seeks to include information about her contact, or lack thereof, with Defendant Anderson regarding her claims of sexual harassment. (Docket #32-2 at 14). She seeks to include this information, as it may show that WKU had notice of the sex-based discrimination suffered by Plaintiff, as is required by her Title IX claim. (Docket #35 at 3-4). Defendants counter that the amendment should not be allowed, as they allege that the proposed amendment is not grounded in fact and is made in bad faith. (Docket 34 at 5).
Both parties point to various pieces of evidence, including emails between Defendant Anderson and Plaintiff Dahmer, as well as Plaintiff Dahmer's deposition. In her email to Plaintiff Dahmer, Defendant Anderson writes "It has come to my attention, through a couple of different sources, that you may have personally experienced some inappropriate behavior of a sex or gender-based nature." (Docket #34-2 at 1). The email requests an opportunity to discuss these allegations. (Id.). A week later, Defendant Anderson followed-up on this email, asking Plaintiff Dahmer to give her a call. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that she attempted to call Defendant Anderson back, but never received a return call, though she left no voicemail. (Docket #34-3 at 1-3).
At her deposition, Plaintiff Dahmer was asked about this email conversation. She stated that she delayed returning Defendant Anderson's call. (Docket #35-1 at 145-48). She states that her reason for the delay was that the she believ...
To continue reading
Request your trial