Humphries v. Pa. State Univ.
| Decision Date | 02 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:20-CV-00064,4:20-CV-00064 |
| Citation | 492 F.Supp.3d 393 |
| Parties | Isaiah HUMPHRIES, Plaintiff, v. The PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY; James Franklin; and Damion Barber, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Joseph Auddino, Steven F. Marino, Marino Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Carol Steinour Young, James P. DeAngelo, Sarah Hyser-Staub, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Harrisburg, PA, James S. Urban, Katherine J. McLay, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Matthew A. Kairis, Jones Day, Houston, TX, for Defendants The Pennsylvania State University, James Franklin.
Anthony G. De Boef, De Boef Lucchesi, PC, State College, PA, for Defendant Damion Barber.
On January 13, 2020, Plaintiff, Isaiah Humphries, (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), filed a 11-count complaint against The Pennsylvania State University ("Penn State"), James Franklin ("Franklin," and together with Penn State, the "University Defendants"), and Damion Barber ("Barber," and together with the University Defendants, the "Defendants"). Although this Court has not had the opportunity to issue a ruling on the merits of this case, it now considers Plaintiff's second amended complaint (the "SAC").
On July 7, 2020, all Defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
The motion is now ripe for disposition; for the reasons that follow, is denied in part and granted in part. However, Plaintiff will be provided leave to amend the complaint.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court dismisses a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff has failed to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." A motion to dismiss "tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading"1 and "streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding."2 " Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law."3 This is true of any claim, "without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one."4
Following the Roberts Court's "civil procedure revival,"5 the landmark decisions of Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly6 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal7 tightened the standard that district courts must apply to 12(b)(6) motions.8 These cases "retired" the lenient "no-set-of-facts test" set forth in Conley v. Gibson and replaced it with a more exacting "plausibility" standard.9
Accordingly, after Twombly and Iqbal , "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ "10 "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."11 "Although the plausibility standard does not impose a probability requirement, it does require a pleading to show more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."12 Moreover, "[a]sking for plausible grounds ... calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [wrongdoing]."13
The plausibility determination is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."14 No matter the context, however, "[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ "15
When disposing of a motion to dismiss, the Court "accept[s] as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw[s] all inferences from the facts alleged in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff]."16 However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions."17 "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."18
As a matter of procedure, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that:
Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal , a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps. First, it must tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, it should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.19
The facts alleged in the SAC, which I must accept as true for the purposes of this motion, are as follows.
Plaintiff was a college student attending Penn State.20 He played football for Penn State and its head coach, James Franklin, after accepting an athletic scholarship.21 Once he arrived on campus, Plaintiff began participating in practices and other team activities.22 Unfortunately, Plaintiff alleges that his time at Penn State was marred by a campaign conducted by other team members (including Damion Barber) to harass and haze other players, including Plaintiff.23 Plaintiff alleges that this campaign "served as a form of initiation into the Penn State football program."24 Throughout his time at Penn State, Plaintiff alleges that he (and other teammates) were subjected to various forms of hazing and harassment.
For example, according to Plaintiff, Barber and other players would say to other teammates, such as Plaintiff: "I am going to Sandusky you."25 Barber and other players would wrestle other teammates, such as Plaintiff, to the ground and simulate a "humping action" while on top of the other teammates.26 According to Plaintiff, Barber and other players would wrestle other teammates, such as Plaintiff, to the ground, while one of them would "place his genitals on the face of the other teammates."27 Plaintiff alleges that other acts of harassment and hazing in this vein were performed throughout his time at Penn State.28 Plaintiff claims that this hazing endangered his "mental and physical health" and therefore, he withdrew from Penn State in December 2018 and transferred to the University of California.29
Plaintiff alleges that before transferring, however, he reported the harassment and hazing to members of the Penn State football team coaching staff.30 He further alleges that members of the coaching staff personally observed harassment and hazing in the locker room.31 Despite these and other reports of ongoing misconduct, "no substantive action was taken by defendant James Franklin or other members of the coaching staff to prevent it."32
Instead, Plaintiff alleges, the coaching staff retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting the harassment and hazing by "overly and unfairly" scrutinizing his athletic performance.33 The coaches allegedly forced Plaintiff to participate in drills designed for him to fail, and then used his failure to justify not giving him playing time.34 The coaches also spoke poorly of Plaintiff to other college coaches once Plaintiff made his decision to leave Penn State and transfer to a different college.35
The SAC alleges 11 counts against the Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that: Penn State violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Count 1); all three Defendants were per se negligent, in violation of Pennsylvania anti-hazing statutes (Counts 2-4); all three Defendants are liable for negligence under Pennsylvania law (Counts 5-7); Barber is liable for assault and battery under Pennsylvania law (Count 8); all three Defendants are liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law (Count 9); Barber is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy under Pennsylvania law (Counts 10-11).
Title IX states in part that "[n]o 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."36 The Supreme Court has recognized that Title IX permits claims of a hostile educational environment based on student-on-student harassment.37 To succeed under this theory, a plaintiff must show that:
(1) the defendant received federal funds; (2) sexual harassment occurred; (3) the harassment took place under circumstances wherein the funding recipient exercised substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the harassment occurred; (4) the funding recipient had actual knowledge of the harassment; (5) the funding recipient was deliberately indifferent to the harassment; and (6) the harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to have deprived the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.38
Penn State does not contest items (1) or (3) but argues that Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss as to the other prongs.39
Plaintiff must first show that sexual harassment occurred – in other words, that he was harassed because of his sex. Penn State argues that Plaintiff does not plead any recognized theory of sexual harassment. Instead, Penn State claims that Plaintiff explicitly and exclusively pleads that any harassment that occurred was wholly unrelated to Plaintiff's sex. This Court agrees.
Plaintiff alleges that the alleged "campaign to harass and haze other members of the Penn State football team, such as the plaintiff ... served as form of initiation into the Penn State football program."40 At no point does Plaintiff ever allege that he was harassed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Bhimani
-
Jean v. Bucknell Univ.
...knew about the September 10, 2020 initiation, that Bucknell approved it, or in any way promoted or funded it. Further, unlike in Humphries v. Pennsylvania State University , Jean does not contend that Bucknell actively ignored a plaintiff's reports of hazing in a way that resulted in future......
-
Johnson v. Pa. Dep't of Corrs.
... ... (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate currently housed at ... the State Correctional Institution Rockview in Bellefonte, ... Pennsylvania, (“SCI-Rockview”) and ... resulting distress ... Humphries v. Pennsylvania State Univ. , 492 F.Supp.3d ... 393, 409 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (citing Doe v ... ...
-
Anderson v. Univ. of New Eng.
...at *10 (D.N.H. July 8, 2021) (applying New Hampshire law to a suspended student's negligence claim); Humphries v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 492 F. Supp. 3d 393, 407 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (applying Pennsylvania law in declining to find that an antihazing policy created an assumed duty of care); Do......