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 4: Abby Owens, filed by the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (the “Board of Supervisors”).[1] Plaintiffs oppose the Motion,[2] and the Board of Supervisors has filed a Reply.[3] 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.[5] The instant Motion concerns the Title IX heightened risk claims asserted by plaintiff Abby Owens 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.[6]
The Court limits its recitation of the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint to those alleged by Plaintiff Abby Owens, the facts asserted in the Complaint by other plaintiffs which Owens relies on in support of her claims, and those facts set out in the Board's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts that Owens admits are true in her Opposing Statement of Material Facts.[7] Owens was recruited by LSU tennis coach Julia Sell and began her education at LSU in the fall of 2013.[8]On June 28, 2016, Owens and friends went to J.L.'s bar in Tigerland where Owens was introduced to John Doe, who bought her multiple shots of tequila.[9] Plaintiffs allege that Owens was drinking heavily and intoxicated.[10] Doe drove Owens in his car to her apartment. He later texted Owens to ask if he could come to her apartment, and returned to her apartment where he orally and vaginally raped her.[11] Owens did not report the rape out of fear.[12]
In April 2017, after failing a breathalyzer test before a tennis match, Owens was dismissed from LSU's tennis team.[13] She checked into a rehabilitation facility that same month.[14] It was during her first few days at the rehabilitation facility that Owens first disclosed to a staff member of the facility the rape by John Doe.[15] That staff member at the facility reported the assault to LSU's Athletic Department.[16]Later during that same month of April 2017, Owens' father ran into LSU tennis coach Julia Sell and advised her of the rape.[17] Julia Sell is reported to have advised Owen's father that Sell did not believe that Owens had been raped.[18] Owens left LSU and transferred to the University of Georgia in January 2018, completing her degree in August 2020, approximately three years after her original graduation date.[19] Owens was never advised of LSU's Title IX Office or offered any resources from the office.[20] After being informed of the Title IX Office by a news reporter, Owens contacted the office on May 20, 2019 and spoke with Jennie Stewart, requesting a copy of her report.[21] Stewart returned Owens' call two days later and advised her that she was aware of the rape but had decided not to move forward with an investigation since the Athletic Department did not give her the name of the assailant.[22] On August 17, 2020, Owens received an email from Stewart in response to a Public Records Request made by Owens' attorney, stating that the Title IX Office did not have any record of her case.[23] Owens contends that she has suffered significant economic and other damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Board of Supervisors, including the loss of her scholarship, additional educational expenses, health care expenses, moving expenses, and the cost of multiple rehabilitation programs.[24] She continues to suffer damages including substance abuse, depression, eating disorder tendencies, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and self-harm.[25]
On April 26, 2021, Owens, 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.[26] In the Second Amended Complaint, Owens 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.;[27] Count V, Violation of Title IX, First Amendment Retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment;[28] Count VI, Denial of Equal Protection in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment;[29] and Count VII, Denial of Substantive and Procedural Due Process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.[30]
In response to a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Board of Supervisors, the Court dismissed Owens' deliberate indifference, hostile environment, and retaliation claims against the Board of Supervisors[31] Thus, the only remaining claim asserted by Owens 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 mishandling and discouraging reports of sexual assault.[32] Plaintiffs specifically allege that LSU created a heightened risk of sexual misconduct on campus for John Doe's victims, including Owens, because LSU failed to properly record John Doe as Mize-Robertson's assailant or to properly investigate Mize-Robertson's report, thereby allowing a known rapist to remain on campus with unfettered access to the student body.[33] Plaintiffs allege that LSU “knew or should have known that this substantially heightened Owens's risk of victimization.”[34]
The Board of Supervisors now seeks summary judgment on Owens' heightened risk claim, arguing that Owens cannot meet the elements of her claim.[35] The Board of Supervisors further argues any reliance by Owens on a heightened risk claim based on LSU's general custom or 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.”[36] The Board of Supervisors also asserts that Owens's heightened risk claims are prescribed as a matter of law.[37] Plaintiffs argue that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on both of Owens's heightened risk claims, including whether the claims are timely.[38] In response, the Board of Supervisors maintains that it is entitled to summary judgment on Owens's heightened risk claims.[39]
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.[40] 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.”[41] 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.”[42] Instead, summary judgment is appropriate if a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party.[43] 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.[44] 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.'”[45]
“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.'”[46] 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.”[47] Title IX is enforceable by private right of action for damages.[48] Through this private right of action institutions receiving federal funds may be liable for, among other things, student-on-student sexual harassment if: (1) the institution had actual knowledge of the harassment; (2) the harasser was under the institution's control; (3) the harassment was based on the victim's sex; (4) the harassment was “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bar[red] the victim's access to an educational opportunity or...
To continue reading
Request your trial