Doe v. Curators of Univ. of Mo.
| Decision Date | 30 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-04229-NKL |
| Parties | JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
This case is about two former students at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who told the University's Title IX Office in the Fall of 2017 that they had been sexually harassed or raped by T.P.[1] Doe 1 reported that T.P. had stalked her and sent her unwelcome pictures of his penis. Doe 2 reported that T.P. had raped her and videotaped the rape. However, rather than abiding by its procedures and allowing Plaintiffs to participate in the Title IX process, the University assumed the role as the complainant during the Title IX process and thereby denied them the rights opportunities and protections promised to them under the University's policies.
Plaintiffs bring this action against the University, in part, pursuant to Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Title IX was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972, almost exactly fifty years ago. The statute prohibits educational organizations that receive federal funds from engaging in discrimination based on sex. It begins: “No person ... shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C § 1681(a). Doe 1 and Doe 2 claim that the University violated their rights under Title IX because: (1) the University was deliberately indifferent to known acts of sexual misconduct by T.P. (Count I); (2) the University discriminated against Doe 1 and Doe 2 based on their sex and was intentionally biased in T.P.'s favor during the investigation and resolution of the Doe complaints, which resulted in an erroneous outcome at the hearings (Count II); (3) the University discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their sex during the Title IX process, including by assuming formal “Complainant” status contrary to their wishes (Count III); and (4) the University's policy of remaining neutral during Title IX proceedings heightened the risk of sexual misconduct on campus (Count V). Plaintiffs also claim the University breached contractual promises contained in its Collective Rules and Regulations (Count IV).
The University moves for summary judgment on all counts. Doc. 104. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the University's Motion for Summary Judgment (1) as to Count I, insofar as it concerns the University's conduct prior to Doe 2's report of sexual misconduct, (2) as to Count I, insofar as it asserts claims by Doe 1, and (3) as to Count V in full. However, the Court DENIES summary judgment as to Count I, insofar as it alleges deliberate indifference following Doe 2's report of T.P.'s sexual misconduct, and as to Counts II, III, and IV in full.
The University's “Collective Rules and Regulations” (“CRRs”) establish the University's policies prohibiting sex discrimination and govern the Title IX process.[3] Students are told that they should report violations of the University's Sexual Harassment Policy to the Title IX Coordinator. See, CRR 600.030. At all relevant times, the University's Title IX Office is responsible for investigating and responding to reports of sex discrimination and harassment at the University.
The person alleged to have been subjected to discrimination, harassment or sexual misconduct in violation of the University's Anti-Discrimination Policies is referred to as the Complainant. CRR 600.030(C)(2). After a report of sexual harassment is made to the Title IX Office and before an investigation is begun, the Complainant is invited to speak with a Title IX investigator. The Complainant would be told what a “formal Complaint” would look like, and what would happen after a “formal Complaint” was filed. Doc. 122-15, at 5-6. It appears that a “formal Complaint” is a written statement by the Complainant about the incident. Doc. 122-15, at 5-6. Both Does gave the Title IX Office a written statement about the incidents involving T.P.
Once a Complaint is filed, a notice of investigation is issued to the Title IX respondent- the alleged perpetrator. The University can proceed with an investigation even if the Complainant chooses not to, but only if, “after due deliberation and based on the nature and severity of the Complaint, the Title IX Coordinator determines there is a sufficient basis to proceed” and “such a decision should be well-reasoned and documented.” CRR 600.020(E)(2). Further, the Policy states that, “[i]n such cases, the Title IX Coordinator will inform the Complainant of the decision to commence an investigation.” Id. The Policy also states, “The Title IX Coordinator or other appropriate official should inform and obtain the consent from the Complainant before beginning an investigation.” Id. The evidence in the Record might persuade the jury that Plaintiffs did not tell the University to not investigate and did not fail to cooperate with the University's investigatory efforts.
When an investigation is to be conducted, the Title IX investigator chooses which-if any-additional witnesses should be contacted and what evidence should be collected. Doc. 12215, at 5-6 (Scott Dep. 20:2-22:21). After the Title IX investigator completes her collection of evidence, she drafts an investigative report. That report is submitted to the Title IX Coordinator, who is the head of the Title IX Office. The Title IX Coordinator then decides whether the complaint should move forward. The Title IX Coordinator may also direct the investigator to collect more evidence. If the case moves forward to the resolution process, the parties-the Respondent and the Complainant-decide how to proceed. The resolution process consists of either Administrative Resolution, where the Title IX Coordinator decides responsibility, or Hearing Panel Resolution, where a panel of three faculty or staff members determines responsibility. Doc. 122-15, at 5-6.
In rare situations, the University can take over the role of the “Complainant” for purposes of the “Equity Resolution Process”. However, the CRRs of the University only permit this when the person subjected to discrimination, harassment or sexual misconduct chooses not to act as the Complainant, CRR 600.030(C)(2). The University exercises this option infrequently and only in unique circumstances. Doc. 105-5 at 16, 75 (Hayes Dep. at 20:2-18, 254:2-13). When the University takes over as the “Complainant”, the alleged victim no longer has the ability to participate fully in the “Equity Resolution Process.” They cannot present evidence except as a testifying witness and have no rights other than those bestowed on witnesses. The alleged victim who is no longer the Complainant can be cross-examined by the accused but the victim cannot cross-examine the accused. The alleged victim can only be in the hearing room to testify so they cannot respond to the evidence presented by the accused. The accused can have an advisor present but any advisor for the victim must remain outside even during the victim's testimony. The alleged victim's right to appeal the decision of the hearing panel is also cut off by the University's decision to assume the status of the Complainant. See CRR 600.030(H), (J), and (L). There is evidence in the Record that would permit the jury to find that neither Plaintiff consented to the University taking over the role of the Complainant in the Equity Resolution Process.
T.P. was a student at the University of Missouri Columbia, and a member of its men's basketball team.
In October of 2016, T.S., another student at the University, reported to the Title IX office that, on several occasions, T.P. had been violent towards her, chased her, grabbed her, pulled her out of her car, pinned her to the hood of her car, and threw her into her car, causing her to hit her head and then to fall to the concrete. See Doc. 135-2, pp. 1-2, SOF 4-6; Doc. 105-1, p. 25 (). T.S. provided the Title IX office with photos of her injuries, as well as a list of witnesses who could speak to T.P.'s conduct.
The Title IX Office acknowledged receipt of T.S.'s complaint and contacted her by phone the next day. T.S. met with the Title IX Office, but she was not comfortable with the University's contacting T.P. She said she reported T.P. so the Title IX Office would have the information in case someone else made a report against him. The Title IX Office offered T.S. interim measures, including a no-contact directive, but T.S. declined them. She asked the Title IX office not to investigate further and requested that the Title IX Office not disclose her name, stating that “she d[id] not feel safe and fear[ed] for her safety if an investigation move[d] forward.”
At the same time, T.S. reported that T.P. had raped one of her sorority sisters, J.K., and requested that the Title IX Office investigate. An investigator contacted J.K, who confirmed that T.P. raped her. However, at the time, J.K. chose not to make a formal report or move forward with the Title IX process. See Doc. 135-1, at 5 SOF A15-18;[4] Doc. 122-4 (email from J.K.).[5]
The Title IX Office met with T.S. again after speaking with J.K. At that point, the Title IX Office honored T.S.'s request that it not move forward with an investigation and that it keep the identities of T.S. and J.K. confidential. The University...
To continue reading
Request your trial