Owens v. La. State Univ.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-242-WBV-SDJ |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2023 |
| Parties | ABBY OWENS, ET AL. v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment No 1: Ashlyn Mize-Robertson,[1] filed by the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (the “Board of Supervisors”).[2] Plaintiff opposes the Motion,[3] and the Board of Supervisors has filed a Reply.[4] After careful consideration of the parties' memoranda and the applicable law, the Motion is DENIED.
This case involves allegations by ten former students of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (“LSU”) that LSU and its Athletic Department funded and implemented a purposefully deficient sexual misconduct and Title IX reporting scheme separate from LSU's official Title IX office to keep sexual assault claims within the Athletic Department.[6] The instant Motion concerns the Title IX heightened risk claim asserted by plaintiff Ashlyn Mize-Robertson against the Board of Supervisors, which survived the Court's March 31, 2023 Order and Reasons granting in part and denying in part the Board of Supervisors' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.[7]
The Court limits its recitation of the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint to those alleged by Plaintiff Ashlyn Mize-Robertson, the facts asserted in the Complaint by other plaintiffs which Mize-Robertson relies on in support of her claims, and the facts set out in the Board's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts that Mize-Robertson admits are true in her Opposing Statement of Material Facts.[8]Mize-Robertson enrolled at LSU in the fall of 2015.[9] On January 22, 2016 Mize-Robertson hosted a party at her off-campus apartment which was attended by several members of the LSU football team, including John Doe, though he had not been invited.[10] After a brief interaction with John Doe, Mize-Robertson, who was intoxicated, went to her bedroom to lay down and subsequently passed out.[11] John Doe entered Mize-Robertson's bedroom while she was passed out and raped her.[12] The following day, Mize-Robertson experienced flashbacks of John Doe spitting on her and penetrating her vaginally and anally.[13] Mize-Robertson told some friends about the rape, one of whom informed her mother who advised the diving coach and Miriam Segar, LSU's Senior Associate Athletic Director.[14] In her deposition, Segar testified that she had been made aware of the sexual assault of Mize-Robertson by January 29, 2016 and forwarded the information to Jim Marchand, LSU's Title IX coordinator, and Mari Fuentes-Martin, LSU's Associate Vice-President and Dean of Students.[15] Segar further testified that she had been advised by Mize-Robertson's friend of Mize-Robertson's name and further that Mize-Robertson had been sexually assaulted by two male athletes.[16] Segar also testified that, while she was told the name of the two male athletes, she did not include those athletes' names in the report she forwarded to Marchand and Fuentes-Martin because LSU tried not to include student athletes' names when filing a report for an NCAA violation because of public records requests and different things.[17] Within a week of the assault Mize-Robertson went to the LSU Health Center and informed a nurse of the assault.[18]
On February 1, 2016 Fuentes-Martin emailed Mize-Robertson and inquired if she wanted to pursue a Title IX investigation; Mize-Robertson declined, fearing that she would not be believed and fearing repercussions to her reputation.[19] Mize-Robertson claims that Doe “began a campaign of vicious harassment” against her following the assault, including by throwing a shake on her car in May 2016.[20] During the spring or summer of 2016, John Doe confronted Mize-Robertson about “spreading rumors” and told her he had “a gun with [her] name on it.”[21] In the fall of 2016, Mize-Robertson told her new boyfriend of the rape. The boyfriend disclosed the rape to Coach Ed Orgeron, who responded that the boyfriend should not be upset because “everybody's girlfriend sleeps with other people.”[22] Mize-Robertson contends that her grades declined and she began drinking heavily, using drugs, and engaging in hypersexual behavior to cope with the trauma.[23] After being arrested on drug charges, Mize-Robertson left LSU.[24] She contends that she still suffers emotional, physical, and economic losses, including lost TOPS scholarship money which she must repay.[25] Mize-Robertson also advises that she has not been able to complete her education at another school because LSU will not release her transcript until she pays back the TOPS scholarship.[26]
On April 26, 2021, Mize-Robertson, along with nine other plaintiffs, filed suit against the Board of Supervisors as well as various LSU officials asserting, among other claims, Title IX violations.[27] In the Second Amended Complaint, Mize-Robertson asserted seven claims as follows: Count I, Violation of Title IX, Deliberate Indifference to Sex Discrimination in violation of 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.; Count II, Violation of Title IX, Hostile Environment in violation of 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.; Count III, Violation of Title IX, Heightened Risk in violation of 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.; Count IV, Violation of Title IX, Retaliation by Withholding Protection Otherwise Conferred by Title IX in violation of 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.;[28] Count V, First Amendment Retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment;[29]Count VI, Denial of Equal Protection in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment;[30] and Count VII, Denial of Substantive and Procedural Due Process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.[31]
In response to a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Board of Supervisors, the Court dismissed Mize-Robertson's deliberate indifference, hostile environment, and retaliation claims.[32] Thus, the only remaining claim asserted by Mize-Robertson against the Board of Supervisors is her heightened risk claim asserted in Count III.
In Count III of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Board of Supervisors created a heightened risk of sex-based discrimination on LSU's campus by cultivating a “culture of silence by failing to report complaints of sex-based discrimination, initiate and/or conduct adequate investigations and grievance procedures under Title IX, and ensure victimized students had equal access to educational opportunities and benefits.”[33]
The Board of Supervisors seeks summary judgment on Mize-Robertson's heightened risk claim, arguing that any such claim based on LSU's general custom or official policy fails since the Fifth Circuit has not recognized a Title IX heightened risk claim based on an official policy, and further because this Court's ruling on the Board's Motion to Dismiss “does not suggest that an official policy claim remains in this case.”[34] The Board of Supervisors further argues that, if such a claim exists, Mize-Robertson fails to meet the elements of such a claim and that any such claim is now prescribed.[35] Plaintiffs contend that the Board of Supervisors' argument that the Fifth Circuit has not recognized a heightened risk claim based on an official policy of deliberate indifference “is of no moment, as the United States Supreme Court has recognized such a claim.”[36] Plaintiffs then assert that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on Mize-Robertson's policy-based heightened risk claim, including whether the claim is timely.[37] In response, the Board of Supervisors maintains that it is entitled to summary judgment on Mize-Robertson's heightened risk claim.[38]
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine disputed issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[39] When assessing whether a dispute regarding any material fact exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.”[40] While all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions or “only a scintilla of evidence.”[41] Instead, summary judgment is appropriate if a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party.[42] Where, as here, the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on the dispositive issue, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim.[43] The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must go beyond the pleadings and, “by her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”[44]
“Congress enacted Title IX in 1972 with two principal objectives in mind: ‘[T]o avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices' and ‘to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices.'”[45] In line with those objectives, Title IX provides that, “No 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.”[46] Title IX is enforceable by...
To continue reading
Request your trial