Pearson v. Logan Univ.

Decision Date04 September 2019
Docket NumberNo. 18-2764,18-2764
Citation937 F.3d 1119
Parties Morgan Katelin PEARSON; Kirsten Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. LOGAN UNIVERSITY, doing business as Logan College of Chiropractic, Defendant - Appellee
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Daniel F. Harvath, HARVATH LAW GROUP, Webster Groves, for Plaintiffs - Appellants.

Andrew W. Blackwell, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Goodman, Sheila Greenbaum, CAPES & SOKOL, Saint Louis, MO, Justin Gelfand, MARGULIS & GELFAND, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant - Appellee.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, KELLY and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Morgan Katelin Pearson and Kirsten Elizabeth Kirkpatrick each sued Logan University under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 – 1688, as well as various state laws, alleging that Logan failed to protect them against stalking and sexual harassment by a fellow student (FS). The district court granted summary judgment for Logan, which Pearson and Kirkpatrick appeal. We affirm.

I

We draw the following background facts from the summary judgment record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Pearson and Kirkpatrick. See Schilf v. Eli Lilly & Co., 687 F.3d 947, 948 (8th Cir. 2012).

In September 2015, Pearson and Kirkpatrick enrolled as undergraduate students at Logan. Logan’s academic catalog contains its harassment policy. According to the catalog, a student who wants to complain of stalking or sexual assault should contact Logan’s Title IX Coordinator, who will commence an investigation within seven days of notification.

On December 8, 2015, Pearson met with Sandra Periello, Logan’s Associate Dean of Students. Pearson complained that FS would come into the library — where she worked — to stare at her, that he would stare at her during chemistry lab, and that he once pressed himself up against her in November in the cadaver lab. Periello told Pearson to write down what happened to her and that Periello would give her statement to Shelley Sawalich, Logan’s Dean of Students and Title IX Coordinator. On December 9, Periello emailed Pearson, reminding her to provide a written statement. Pearson responded by asking to meet with Sawalich, stating she believed another dean had allowed FS to take Pearson’s same "complete schedule" in the next trimester. Sawalich and Pearson then exchanged emails to set up a meeting that same day.

At their December 9 meeting, Pearson repeated to Sawalich what she had told Periello with respect to FS’s conduct and provided the names of four people who she said had witnessed the harassment. Pearson said that she was "terrified of being raped." She also agreed with Sawalich that the November incident in the cadaver lab may have been an accident.

Sawalich labeled Pearson’s allegations as harassment and stalking and said that she was required to investigate FS’s conduct. Sawalich told Pearson that she had the option to remain anonymous as the complainant. Pearson asked how Sawalich would interview her witnesses while maintaining her anonymity, and Sawalich gave Pearson an example of the kind of question Sawalich would ask. Pearson elected to remain anonymous. Sawalich explained that she was not going to move forward with the investigation at the time because she had another case to "take care of" and Logan’s finals and holidays were coming up, but told Pearson that before meeting with FS, she would email Pearson. Sawalich asked Pearson for a written statement, which she expected to receive from Pearson by Monday, December 14. She wanted the written statement "to assist with understanding the situation, interactions, and timeline" of relevant events.

On December 14, Pearson emailed Sawalich that she was "pinched for time" and asked, "Is it okay if I send it to you via email by next Monday?" On December 15, Sawalich responded,"You are welcome to get me the information next week .... What this means, though, is that I won’t really be able to move forward until next trimester with the investigation. Is that okay with you?" Pearson did not respond to that question.

On December 21, Pearson sent her written statement to Sawalich. In her statement, Pearson claimed that at the beginning of the semester FS had made several attempts to spend time with her outside of class, wanting to study with her and waiting at the end of class to walk out with her. She stated that FS suggested they could drink beer while studying together, which she found inappropriate because he knew she was underage and did not drink. FS was in his early thirties. After she began working at the library, FS would come to the library every day and watch her, trying to find opportunities to interact with her. She claimed that he would always sit at a nearby table and often appear to not be doing homework or other library-related work. She alleged that in class, FS would "try to jump into conversations" she was having with other people. Pearson also stated that she thought FS was trying to take her very same schedule in the next trimester, which made her uncomfortable because she believed he had no good reason to do so. Pearson made no mention in her statement of the November incident in the cadaver lab. Sawalich replied that same day, stating that she would review Pearson’s statement and "call [FS] in to talk" after he returned to campus. Sawalich also stated, "I ... want to reiterate that Logan’s ability to meaningfully investigate the incident and pursue disciplinary action may be limited because of the attempt to maintain confidentiality."

Sawalich met with FS on January 8, 2016, and again on January 15, 2016, but did not email Pearson in advance of either meeting. Among other things, she told him there had been a complaint filed against him, and reminded him of Logan’s policy against retaliation. On January 16, Pearson emailed Sawalich for an update, stating that FS continued to make her feel unsafe on campus. Sawalich responded that same day, telling Pearson she had met with FS twice and asking Pearson to meet on January 19, after the holiday weekend. At that meeting, Pearson told Sawalich that she continued to feel uncomfortable. She believed FS had followed her inappropriately at a school event and had stopped to watch as a female classmate measured her hip bone at the library. Sawalich told Pearson that FS had been very angry at their first meeting and that she had reiterated to FS at the second meeting that retaliation would be "frowned upon." Sawalich explained that she had not interviewed any of Pearson’s witnesses because Sawalich did not believe that she could maintain Pearson’s anonymity while doing so.

On February 1, Pearson met with Boyd Bradshaw, Vice President for Enrollment Management, to complain about Sawalich’s handling of the investigation. On February 3, Pearson met with both Bradshaw and Sawalich to address her concerns and to discuss reopening the case. They also agreed that FS would be asked to stay out of the library and instructed to have no contact with Pearson. Pearson decided to drop her request for anonymity.

Sawalich began reaching out to witnesses. Kirkpatrick was one of those witnesses. Sawalich interviewed Kirkpatrick on February 4. Kirkpatrick told Sawalich that on the first day of school, FS solicited her phone number by saying he was getting everybody’s phone numbers, but after she gave him her number it seemed that she was the only one he asked. He started texting that Friday, wanting her to go to the library with him on Saturday. She eventually told him that she had a boyfriend, but FS continued to text her. Kirkpatrick stopped answering. In total, they exchanged approximately 15 texts that day. She told Sawalich that when she first met FS she thought he was "creepy," but she also said she "was fine now." Later, Kirkpatrick explained she said that because she did not want FS to be upset with her when he read Sawalich’s findings. She also explained that before Sawalich emailed her, she had no plans to call or go see Sawalich, and that she had never communicated any complaints about FS’s conduct before her February 4 interview.

On February 6, a Saturday, Pearson emailed Sawalich that she feared FS was retaliating against her because she heard that he was spreading rumors that Pearson had falsely accused another student at her old school of harassing her and that she is overly dramatic. On February 8, Sawalich responded that she was planning to meet with FS that same day and would address the alleged retaliation. When she met with FS, Sawalich told him that he was prohibited from going into the library during the duration of the investigation and from having any contact with Pearson.

On February 22, Sawalich emailed Pearson, explaining that she had talked with witnesses for both Pearson and FS, and that she was putting together information for a written report to Logan’s Honor Council. She also asked Pearson for the text messages that Pearson had mentioned in her written statement and for clarification as to whether Pearson ever told FS "in general terms that [Pearson] was not interested in interacting with him at all and that he should ... leave [her] alone." On February 26, Sawalich and Pearson met once more. In response to Sawalich’s question, Pearson explained that she had on "countless" occasions told FS not to talk to her and that she would ignore FS and reject his attempts to interact with her. Pearson also told Sawalich that she thought that FS was now blaming her for his poor academic performance. On February 28, Pearson wrote Sawalich that she was unable to retrieve any of the text messages and asked Sawalich to move forward without them.

In early March, Sawalich circulated a written report of her investigation to Logan’s Honor Council, Pearson, and FS. Among other things, the written report stated that Sawalich had spoken to both Pearson and FS, that both Pearson and FS had identified potential...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Fugett v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • 15 Febrero 2023
    ... ... Dingmann Bros. Constr. of Richmond, ... Inc ., 34 F.4th 649, 652 (8th Cir. 2022); Pearson v ... Logan Univ ., 937 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2019) ... “The Supreme Court's ... ...
  • Keup v. Sarpy Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • 21 Diciembre 2023
    ... ... Bros. Constr. of Richmond, Inc. , 34 F.4th 649 (8th Cir ... 2022); Pearson v. Logan Univ ., 937 F.3d 1119, 1124 ... (8th Cir. 2019), the Court assumes for summary ... ...
  • Timm Grandview, LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • 2 Septiembre 2022
    ...Constr. of Richmond, Inc., 34 F.4th 649,, 2022 WL 1559586, at *2 (8th Cir. 2022) (pagination not yet available); Pearson v. Logan Univ., 937 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2019). The parties bear specific burdens on a motion for summary judgment. “The moving party bears the burden of showing the......
  • Jones v. Herian
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • 30 Marzo 2023
    ... ... Dingmann Bros. Constr. of Richmond, ... Inc ., 34 F.4th 649, 652 (8th Cir. 2022); Pearson v ... Logan Univ ., 937 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2019) ... “The Supreme Court's ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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