Gross v. Weber, No. 54-9

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: BEAM
• Citation: 186 F.3d 1089
• Parties: (8th Cir. 1999) Betty Ann Gross, formerly known as Betty Ann Owen, Appellant, v. Robert R. Weber; Sisseton School District, of Roberts County, South Dakota, a public corporation, Appellees. Submitted:
• Docket Number: No. 54-9,No. 98-2394
• Decision Date: 10 March 1999

Page 1089

186 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999) Betty Ann Gross, formerly known as Betty Ann Owen, Appellant,
v.
Robert R. Weber; Sisseton School District No. 54-9, of Roberts County, South Dakota, a public corporation, Appellees. No. 98-2394 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Submitted: March 10, 1999
Decided: August 10, 1999

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota

Page 1090

Before BEAM and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,¹ Judge of the United States Court of International Trade.

BEAM, Circuit Judge

Betty Ann Gross (Gross) appeals the district court's² dismissal of the Sisseton School District (the School District) as a party in her action under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681, and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 42 U.S.C. 13981. The district court found that Gross failed to state a claim based on events completed prior to the passage of the laws, because neither law applies retroactively. Gross argues that Title IX and the VAWA should apply retroactively, or in the alternative that her Title IX claim is nevertheless viable because she "realized the existence of a cause of action for the first time" in 1994-over twenty years after Title IX's enactment. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case comes before us on appeal from the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On a motion to dismiss, we review the district court's decision de novo, accepting all the factual allegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to Gross. See Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998).

Gross's complaint and proposed amended complaint recite the following facts: Gross was subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of her school teacher, Robert R. Weber (Weber), from approximately 1964 until 1966. She left the school in 1966. In 1972, Congress passed Title IX, prohibiting discrimination in education on the basis of sex. "On July 8, 1994, [Gross] realized the existence of a cause of action for the first time," while reading a newspaper article. Id. at 4. Two months later, the VAWA was enacted to provide a cause of action for crimes of violence motivated by gender.³ . Gross filed a lawsuit against Weber and the School District on June 27, 1997, claiming, among other things, violation of Title IX. The School District filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Title IX cannot be applied retroactively. In the face of the motion to dismiss, Gross sought to amend her complaint to add a cause of action under the VAWA. The district court dismissed, concluding that neither Title IX nor the VAWA apply retroactively.

Page 1091

II. DISCUSSION

Gross concedes that her VAWA claim can only be successful if the law is applied retroactively. On the other hand, she argues that her Title IX claim is viable either because of retroactive application of the statute or as a result of her recent realization. We consider first the question of retroactive application.

There is a "'traditional presumption against applying statutes affecting substantive rights, liabilities, or duties to conduct arising before their enactment,' absent an express statutory command to the contrary." Viacom Inc. v. Ingram Enters., Inc., 141 F.3d 886, 888 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 278 (1994)). However, in order for the presumption against retroactivity to apply, the claim must require a "truly 'retrospective' application of a statute." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 279. For this, we ask whether the statute "'attaches new legal consequences to. events completed before its enactment.'" Martin v. Hadix, 119 S. Ct. 1998, 2006 (1999) (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 270). Thus, to be truly retrospective, the statute must "impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280.

The VAWA contains no "clear congressional intent" to apply its provisions retroactively. Maitland v. University of Minn., 43 F.3d 357, 362 (8th Cir. 1994). However, Gross argues that application of the...