S.S. v. Alexander

Decision Date11 February 2008
Docket NumberNo. 58335-2-I.,58335-2-I.
Citation143 Wn. App. 75,177 P.3d 724
PartiesS.S., Appellant, and P.L., Plaintiff, v. Roc ALEXANDER, Defendant, and University of Washington, Respondent.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

Rebecca Jane Roe, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.

Andrew George Cooley, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

DWYER, J.

¶ 1 S.S., a former undergraduate student at the University of Washington who was also employed by the UW's athletic department as a student assistant equipment manager for the UW football team, appeals from a superior court order granting summary judgment dismissal of her claims against the university. S.S. alleges that she was raped in her UW dormitory room by Roc Alexander, who at that time was a fellow student and a member of the football team. S.S. further alleges that the actions of UW officials following her report of the rape, coupled with the trauma of the rape, deprived her of her right to be free from sex discrimination in education programs, thus violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, and deprived her of her civil rights, a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 After an exhaustive review of relevant decisional authority and a thorough review of the trial court record, we conclude that S.S. put before the superior court sufficient evidence to warrant the submittal of her Title IX claim to a jury. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the superior court and remand this matter to that court for further proceedings.

I. Facts2

¶ 2 In autumn of 2000, 18-year-old S.S. began attending the UW as an undergraduate freshman. The summer before classes commenced, she moved into freshman housing on the UW campus and began working in a highly-coveted position as a student assistant equipment manager for the UW's varsity football team, a position she had also held with her high school team. After the conclusion of the football team's regular season while the team was engaged in a practice period leading up to the January 1, 2001 Rose Bowl game, S.S. became involved in a consensual sexual relationship with Roc Alexander, another student at the UW and a key player on the football team.

¶ 3 During the course of' their relationship, S.S. began to find Alexander's conduct toward her increasingly demeaning. For example, Alexander would express interest in having sex with S.S.'s roommate, open and leave open the door of S.S.'s dormitory room while S.S. was undressed after intercourse, and wipe off his genitalia after intercourse with items of clothing belonging to S.S. Once, after having sex in a dormitory study room, Alexander ejaculated onto S.S.'s back and then refused to wipe off the ejaculate, knowing that this would require S.S. to either walk back to her room in that state or use her clothes to clean herself and then have to wear them during her walk to her room. On another occasion, Alexander "whipped out his penis and stuck it in [S.S.'s] face" in the presence of another male who was in. Alexander's room watching television.

¶ 4 During their last consensual sexual encounter, Alexander raised his hand to S.S. in a threatening manner. S.S. ended their relationship as a result of that incident.

¶ 5 Days after the relationship ended, Alexander forcibly pushed his way into S.S.'s dormitory room, removed her clothing, and had penile-vaginal intercourse with her against her will and despite her verbal protest.

¶ 6 After the incident, S.S. "felt raped" but did not know "if it was legally a rape or not" and so did not immediately report the rape to anyone because she "just wanted to forget what happened." S.S. continued her work with the football team, a position that would occasionally expose her to contact with Alexander, believing that she should not have to sacrifice her employment as a result of Alexander's actions. However, she avoided social contact with Alexander and other football team members for the remaining portion of that school year.

¶ 7 The next summer, 2001, S.S. again began working as a student assistant equipment manager for the football team in preparation for the upcoming season. While socializing at a training camp for equipment managers, trainers, and coaches, assistant coach Pete Kaligis asked S.S. if she had ever been sexually assaulted by a football player. S.S. became emotionally upset, answered in the affirmative, and identified Alexander as her assailant. Kaligis did not present or suggest to S.S. any specific options for dealing with the incident.

¶ 8 Approximately two weeks later, S.S. was approached by Tony Piro, the equipment manager for the football team and S.S.'s supervisor. Piro asked S.S. if she would like to speak with the head football coach about the incident. S.S. answered in the negative. Piro did not present or suggest to S.S. any other options for dealing with the incident.

¶ 9 S.S. was subsequently approached by Dave Burton, the UW's associate athletic director, and Piro's supervisor.3 Burton brought S.S. into a meeting with Marie Tuite, the assistant athletic director and Burton's supervisor. At the meeting, S.S. told Tuite and Burton that Alexander had "violated" her. In response to her allegation, Tuite and Burton suggested that S.S. transfer away from her position with the football team. Burton warned S.S. that members of the football team would likely harass S.S. should they find out about the rape, and Tuite stated that, if S.S. stayed on the football team and it was revealed that S.S. was raped by a member of the team, "it would reflect poorly on the University of Washington's handling of the situation." S.S. stated that she did not wish to leave her job with the football program.

¶ 10 Tuite offered to arrange a small number of counseling sessions for S.S. and told S.S. that some kind of action would occur to redress her complaint. Neither Tuite nor Burton presented or suggested any other specific options to S.S. for dealing with the incident.

¶ 11 S.S. did not hear anything more from Tuite or any other member of the athletic department for several days or weeks. She then returned to Tuite's office and expressed an interest in filing a police report. Tuite stated that she was working on a solution and specifically told S.S. to wait. Again, Tuite did not present or suggest any specific options to S.S.

¶ 12 Tuite then contacted her direct supervisor, athletic director Barbara Hedges, and Helen Remick, the school's designated Title IX compliance officer. Remick referred Tuite to Lois Price-Spratlen, the UW's ombudsman.4 Hedges, Tuite, and Price-Spratlen then met to determine how to proceed in regard to S.S.'s allegation. At that meeting, the three women decided that Price-Spratlen would conduct a mediation between S.S., the alleged rape victim, and Alexander, her alleged rapist.

¶ 13 A day or two after that decision was made, Burton again approached S.S. and brought her to meet with Price-Spratlen. Once S.S. arrived at Price-Spratlen's office she was asked to fill out an intake form, upon which she identified the reason for her visit as "date rape." During S.S's meeting with Price-Spratlen, Price-Spratlen told S.S. about the mediation process that had been planned.

¶ 14 Despite the existence of other on-campus and off-campus resources available to victims of rape and sexual assault, Price-Spratlen did not present or suggest to S.S. any options for dealing with the situation other than the mediation.5 Price-Spratlen also told S.S. that she had already met with Alexander, and that he "was really sorry and that he'd cried in front of [Price-Spratlen]," thereby implying that Alexander would be cooperative at the planned mediation. While S.S. knew "in a sense" that her participation in the mediation was voluntary, she also stated: "[I]t was my employer who was encouraging this. So, I didn't know what would happen if I didn't go through the mediation, what sort of other resolution there would be."

¶ 15 S.S. had two subsequent meetings with Price-Spratlen. S.S. gave Price-Spratlen detailed accounts of the rape, both verbally and in writing. There is no indication in the record, however, that any person from Price-Spratlen's office, any person from the athletic administration, or any other university official ever investigated the circumstances surrounding S.S.'s complaint to determine the truth of her allegation.

¶ 16 On the evening of October 1, 2001, a three-hour mediation took place in Price-Spratlen's office. S.S., the student-employee alleged rape victim, Alexander, the student-football player alleged rapist, Price-Spratlen, the UW ombudsman, and Tuite, the assistant athletic director, were all present at the mediation. During the mediation, S.S. expressed her desire that Alexander be suspended from participation in several football games. Alexander denied S.S.'s rape allegation and threatened that he would leave the UW if he were suspended from any football games. Tuite refused to consider suspending Alexander, stating that the media "would ask why he was not playing." At the conclusion of the mediation, Tuite and Price-Spratlen decided that Alexander would undergo counseling and perform community service.

¶ 17 S.S. was not satisfied with the mediation's outcome, believing that she was not provided the opportunity to discuss most of the issues she wished to discuss, and that referring Alexander for counseling and community service work was a sanction not commensurate with the seriousness of the rape she had suffered. She further suspected that Tuite and Price-Spratlen were biased in Alexander's favor and that Tuite was attempting to protect the football program from public embarrassment.

¶ 18 After the mediation, S.S. approached Price-Spratlen and expressed her dissatisfaction with the outcome of the mediation. In response, Price-Spratlen asked S.S. if she was "making everything up." Price-Spratlen then told S.S. that a different outcome would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 2009
    ...court is bound by the construction of a federal statute placed upon it by the Supreme Court of the United States. S.S. v. Alexander, 143 Wash.App. 75, 92, 177 P.3d 724 (2008) (quoting N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Longmire, 104 Wash. 121, 125, 176 P. 150 (1918)). We have greater latitude when analyzin......
  • Mercer Island Sch. Dist. v. Office of the Superintendent of Pub. Instruction
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 2015
    ...assessing the District's response to B.W.'s allegations. In doing so, she noted that this court had, in the case of S.S. v. Alexander, 143 Wash.App. 75, 177 P.3d 724 (2008), “provided guidance on the legal standard to be used in cases of student-on-student discriminatory harassment.” After ......
  • Abbay v. Aurora Pump Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 2011
    ... ... applied in a federal court charged with deciding identical ... issues." S.S. v. Alexander , 143 Wn.App. 75, 93, ... 177 P.3d 724 (2008). Further, although resort must be taken ... to some decisions analyzing the jurisdiction of ... ...
  • Schuster v. Prestige Senior Mgmt., L.L.C.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 2016
    ...18 Wash.2d 798, 808, 140 P.2d 507 (1943) ; N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Longmire, 104 Wash. 121, 125, 176 P. 150 (1918) ; S.S. v. Alexander, 143 Wash.App. 75, 92, 177 P.3d 724 (2008). The Supreme Court holds the responsibility to say what a federal statute means, and once the Court has spoken, it is ......
  • 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