Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 17-2220

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtKING, Circuit Judge
Citation911 F.3d 674
Parties FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION; Feminists United on Campus; Paige McKinsey; Julia Michels; Kelli Musick; Jordan Williams; Alexis Lehman, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. Richard HURLEY, Former President of University of Mary Washington; Troy Paino, Current President of University of Mary Washington; University of Mary Washington, Defendants – Appellees. National Women’s Law Center et al.; National Education Association, Amici Supporting Appellant, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ; Cato Institute; National Coalition Against Censorship; Nadine Strossen; Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amici Supporting Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 17-2220,17-2220
Decision Date19 December 2018

911 F.3d 674

FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION; Feminists United on Campus; Paige McKinsey; Julia Michels; Kelli Musick; Jordan Williams; Alexis Lehman, Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
Richard HURLEY, Former President of University of Mary Washington; Troy Paino, Current President of University of Mary Washington; University of Mary Washington, Defendants – Appellees.


National Women’s Law Center et al.; National Education Association, Amici Supporting Appellant,

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ; Cato Institute; National Coalition Against Censorship; Nadine Strossen; Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amici Supporting Appellee.

No. 17-2220

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: May 8, 2018
Decided: December 19, 2018


ARGUED: Erwin Chemerinsky, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Berkeley, California, for Appellants. Samuel Thurston Towell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, Carolyn L. Wheeler, KATZ, MARSHALL & BANKS, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Tim Schulte, SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Neena Chaudhry, Emily Martin, Sunu Chandy, Alexandra Brodsky, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C.; Cathy A. Harris, Daniel Clark, KATOR, PARKS, WEISER & HARRIS, P.L.L.C., for Amici National Women’s Law Center, et al. Alice O’Brien, Eric A. Harrington, Amanda L. Shapiro, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus National Education Association. Sophia Cope, Corynne McSherry, David Greene, Adam Schwartz, Aaron Mackey, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Electronic Frontier Foundation. Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Amici Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Cato Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, and Nadine Strossen.

Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Harris joined. Judge Agee wrote an opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part.

KING, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Feminist Majority Foundation, Feminists United on Campus, and several Feminists United members appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their civil action, filed pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Feminist Majority Found. v. Univ. of Mary Wash. , 283 F.Supp.3d 495 (E.D. Va. 2017). The plaintiffs seek the reinstatement of three claims: a Title IX sex discrimination claim against the University of Mary Washington ("UMW," or the "University"); a Title IX retaliation claim against UMW; and a § 1983 claim against UMW’s former president, Dr. Richard Hurley, for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Feminist Majority Found. v. Univ. of Mary Wash. , No. 3:17-cv-00344 (E.D. Va. June 9, 2017), ECF No. 13 (the "Complaint"). As explained below, we affirm the dismissal of the § 1983 claim and part of the Title IX retaliation claim. We vacate, however, the dismissal of the Title IX sex discrimination claim and the

911 F.3d 680

balance of the retaliation claim. We therefore remand for further proceedings.

I.

A.

Because the district court dismissed the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we accept and recite the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. See Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. , 877 F.3d 522, 524 (4th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff Feminists United is a student organization at UMW and a local affiliate of plaintiff Feminist Majority Foundation, a national organization. During the 2014-2015 academic year, plaintiffs Paige McKinsey, Julia Michels, Kelli Musick, Jordan Williams, and Alexis Lehman were UMW students who served on Feminists United’s executive board.

1.

In November 2014, UMW’s student senate voted to authorize male-only fraternities at the University. During a campus town hall meeting following the senate’s authorization, Feminists United members questioned the wisdom of having such fraternities at UMW, in light of "research that showed that Greek life on campus increased the number of [on-campus] sexual assaults." See Complaint ¶ 21. Plaintiff McKinsey was particularly troubled by the vote of approval, and she believed that UMW had failed to support victims of sexual assault in the past. Soon after the town hall meeting, UMW students debated the Greek life vote on Yik Yak, a now-defunct social media application. Yik Yak allowed its users within a limited geographic range to create and view anonymous messages known as "Yaks." Within the Yik Yak conversational thread available at UMW, several students expressed — in offensive terms — strong criticism of Feminists United and its members for their opposition to on-campus fraternities.1

On November 21, 2014, several Feminists United members met with UMW’s Title IX coordinator, Dr. Leah Cox, to explain their concerns about the University’s past failures in responding to student sexual assault complaints. As the Feminists United members walked home from the meeting, other UMW students drove by and screamed, "Fuck the feminists!" See Complaint ¶ 24.

Two days later, on November 23, a UMW student videotaped members of the UMW men’s rugby team performing a chant that glorified violence against women, including rape and necrophilia.2 Later that month, the student who recorded the rugby team video provided it to the UMW administration and informed plaintiff McKinsey about the video. Members of Feminists United subsequently met with then-President Hurley to discuss the rugby team’s offensive chant. They were assured

911 F.3d 681

by Hurley that some unspecified "action" was being taken in response thereto. See Complaint ¶ 27.

Despite President Hurley’s assurances, plaintiff McKinsey perceived that UMW’s administration was indifferent to the rugby team’s chant and other discriminatory acts suffered by female students on campus. On January 29, 2015, McKinsey published an opinion piece in UMW’s student newspaper explaining "[w]hy UMW is not a feminist friendly campus." See Complaint ¶ 28. McKinsey therein discussed the rugby team’s chant and recent harassing and threatening Yaks aimed at Feminists United members. That article, however, was not well-received by some members of the UMW community and "led to an escalation of verbal assaults and cyber-attacks on members of Feminists United." Id. ¶ 29. For example, various comments of a "derogatory, sexist, and threatening" nature were posted to the school newspaper’s website. Id. ¶ 85.

On February 20, 2015, members of the UMW men’s rugby team approached plaintiff McKinsey in the University’s dining hall and confronted her about the newspaper article. That same day, McKinsey informed Dr. Cox — UMW’s Title IX coordinator — that McKinsey felt unsafe on the UMW campus after her encounter with the rugby team members, particularly in light of the threats lodged against her and other Feminists United members on Yik Yak and the school newspaper’s website. McKinsey requested that the UMW administration take "some sort of action." See Complaint ¶ 32.

Dr. Cox responded to plaintiff McKinsey on February 24, informing McKinsey that Cox did not know what actions UMW would take against the men’s rugby team. Cox offered, however, to schedule a mediated discussion between the rugby team and Feminists United. About that time, a UMW professor — concerned with the threatening nature of recent Yik Yak posts — emailed various Feminists United members to request their participation in what the professor called "listening circles." See Complaint ¶ 34. As proposed, UMW students, including Feminists United members, would meet with UMW faculty and administrators in small groups and explain how the offending Yaks were affecting them.

On March 11, 2015, UMW held an open forum about sexual assault on campus, at which President Hurley downplayed the seriousness of the rugby team’s chant. Several days later, plaintiff Michels emailed Hurley and notified him that she planned to release a transcript of the rugby team’s chant to UMW’s student newspaper because the administration had not yet punished those responsible for it. Michels reiterated that Feminists United members felt unsafe on campus. In response, Hurley disclosed that some students had been sanctioned for their participation in the repulsive chanting and that those sanctions had been appealed. Hurley added that he took student safety concerns "quite seriously." See Complaint ¶ 39.

About a week after the open forum, President Hurley emailed the UMW student body, "generally discussing UMW’s efforts to end sexual assault, violence against women, and others forms of discrimination and harassment." See Complaint ¶ 41. Without referencing the rugby team’s chant or any other specific acts, Hurley described certain students’ recent behavior as "repugnant and highly offensive." Id. That same day, Hurley met with several Feminists United members, who questioned why Hurley’s email to the student body had not mentioned the rugby team’s repulsive chant or the sanctions imposed on the students who had participated therein. Hurley responded that he

911 F.3d 682
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
108 cases
  • Haughwout v. Tordenti, SC 20076
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 30, 2019
    ...in context or statements that they were "hyperbole, jest, or political dissent"); see also Feminist Majority Foundation v. Hurley , 911 F.3d 674, 691–92 (4th Cir. 2018) (rejecting university's defense in Title IX case that first amendment "circumscribed" its ability to respond to "online ha......
  • Willey v. Bd. of Educ. of St. Mary's Cnty., Case No.: PWG-20-161
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • August 30, 2021
    ...Committee , 555 U.S. 246, 257, 129 S.Ct. 788, 172 L.Ed.2d 582 (2009) ; see also 557 F.Supp.3d 660 Feminist Majority Foundation v. Hurley , 911 F.3d 674, 700 (4th Cir. 2018) ("Title IX allows for lawsuits against only educational institutions and programs."). Plaintiffs argue that "Title IX ......
  • Rios v. Jenkins, Civil Action No. 3:18CV00082
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • July 15, 2019
    ...qualified immunity." Booker v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 855 F.3d 533, 538 n.1 (4th Cir. 2017) ; see also Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674, 706 n.18 (4th Cir. 2018) (declining to consider a nonbinding unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circu......
  • Borkowski v. Balt. Cnty., Civil Action No. DKC 18-2809
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • September 30, 2019
    ...of whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley , 911 F.3d 674, 703–06 (4th Cir. 2018). As will be discussed, Plaintiffs have not met their burden.F. 42 U.S.C. § 1983Plaintiffs allege five remaining claims pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • REMEDIATING RACISM FOR RENT: A LANDLORD'S OBLIGATION UNDER THE FHA.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 119 No. 8, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...Williams ex rel. Hart v. Paint Valley Loc. Sch. Dist., 400 F.3d 360, 369 (6th Cir. 2005))). But see Feminist Majority Found, v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674, 703 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing Stiles with approval but also requiring a showing of discriminatory intent in addition to deliberate indifference......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT