Stafford v. The George Wash. Univ.
| Decision Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 18-cv-2789 (CRC) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
| Parties | JABARI STAFFORD, Plaintiff, v. THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
Plaintiff Jabari Stafford alleges that he was a victim of racial abuse by coaches and teammates during his three-and-a-half years as a varsity tennis player at George Washington University (“GWU” or “the University”). Stafford also claims that the University was deliberately indifferent to the racial hostility he experienced, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Before the Court is GWU's motion for summary judgment. As explained below, the Court concludes that GWU is entitled to summary judgment because Stafford's Title VI claim is entirely barred by the applicable statute of limitations-the one-year limitations period in the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. The Court acknowledges, however, that its statute of limitations holding is a novel one; courts in this district have up to now applied the three-year limitations period from D.C.'s general personal injury law to Title VI claims. In recognition of that fact, and for the benefit of the parties and any reviewing court, the Court also indicates, at the conclusion of its Opinion, how it would view the summary judgment record under a three-year statute of limitations.
A. Factual background
Plaintiff Jabari Stafford, who is African American, joined the GWU men's tennis team in the fall of 2014. Def. SMF ¶¶ 1, 13-15.[1] According to Stafford, shortly after the start of his freshman season, several of his teammates began using what he refers to as “racial rhetoric” calling him the n-word or using it in his presence, referring to him as a “monkey, ” asking about whether his ancestors had been enslaved, and posting memes using the n-word to social media. See Pl. SMF ¶¶ 17-18; Def. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2 at 46:1-5 (Jabari Stafford Dep.). Stafford's statement of disputed fact does not pinpoint the timing of such incidents, and evidence in the record likewise does not always provide a clear timeline. See Pl. SMF ¶ 17 (); Def. Ex. 2 at 51:20-22 (). Stafford emphasized in deposition testimony, however, that this kind of “[r]acial rhetoric” began in “the very beginning of his freshman year, ” and that he quicky complained about it to the head coach at the time, Greg Munoz. Def. Ex. 2 at 48:19-50:21. Stafford claims that Munoz did nothing in response-and instead participated in and encouraged the mistreatment Stafford faced. See Pl. SMF ¶¶ 32-40.
In Stafford's telling, Munoz and other coaching staff singled out him and other players of color because of their race and American nationality in several separate incidents that year. Id. ¶¶ 4- 16.
Things first came to a head in January 2015-the middle of Stafford's freshman year- when he was suspended from the tennis team following an altercation with a teammate. See Def. SMF ¶ 32; Pl. SMF ¶ 26. In his statement of facts, Stafford claims that, at the time, his “only confrontations with teammates consisted of him voicing his objections to their racist remarks.” Pl. SMF ¶ 26. But the cited portions of the record do not substantiate that allegation. See Def. Ex. 2 at 45:15-46:14 (recounting complaint of racism to Coach Munoz and altercation with teammate, but never claiming that fights with teammates had been limited to objections to racist remarks). And a January 18, 2015, email from Munoz to Stafford lists several other reasons for the suspension including his “anger control” and “profanity issues, ” his lack of “pride” in the University, a failure to “support teammates, ” and an incident in which Stafford “disrespect[ed]” an assistant coach and failed to apologize. Def. SMF ¶ 33; Def. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 16.
After the suspension, Stafford and his father, Tom, met with Coach Munoz and Nicole Early, the administrator for the tennis team in GWU's Athletics Department. See Def. SMF ¶¶ 34-36; Pl. SMF ¶ 43. The parties' accounts of this meeting differ substantially. Stafford and his father both testified that, during this conversation, they told Early and Munoz about “the racial rhetoric that was going on, ” including “the names, the harassment, [and] the hostility.” See Pl. SMF ¶ 44; Def. Ex. 2 at 120:13-121:19; Def. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 6 at 41:10-42:11 (Tom Stafford Dep.) (recounting discussions of “unlevel playing field” and “race in America”). In Jabari's view, the two “ignored” his report. Def. Ex. 2 at 120:21-22. GWU, by contrast, insists that the meeting focused solely on “the non-discriminatory reasons” for Stafford's suspension. See Def. SMF ¶ 36; Def. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 20 at 15 (GWU interrogatory responses). Notably, Early did not recall any discussion of racism. Rather, she remembered Stafford's father alleging his son was treated differently than other players who engaged in similarly disruptive and disrespectful behavior, but did not remember him tying this treatment to Jabari's “race.” Def. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 7 at 49:3-11 (Early Dep.). The parties have pointed to no evidence in the record that either Early or Munoz took steps to address any racial harassment on the tennis team after this meeting. A month later, Stafford was reinstated to the team. Def. SMF ¶¶ 40-41.
Stafford's teammates' use of racial slurs purportedly continued through the end of his freshman year and into his sophomore season. For example, Stafford testified in his deposition that shortly after his reinstatement, one player yelled the n-word “so loud that pretty much everybody could hear it” while the two were in a hotel room for a tournament. Def. Ex. 2 at 52:20-53:11. At some point that spring, another player loudly called an opposing player a “f- porch monkey, ” while another referred to Stafford as “an ape.” Id. at 54:6-11, 55:9-22; see also Pl. SMF ¶¶ 17, 20. Stafford recalled that, after one such incident, Munoz claimed that the teammate didn't “really mean it” and instructed Stafford to “shut up” and not “worry about it.” Def. Ex. 2 at 54:11-15; see also Pl. SMF ¶¶ 34-35. It is undisputed that Stafford did not again report any harassment on account of his race by his teammates or Munoz to others at the University during his freshman year. See Def. SMF ¶ 53; Pl. SMF ¶ 46.
But the parties do dispute whether Stafford put the University on notice about any mistreatment during his sophomore year-a period when, he says, the racist language by his teammates and coaches continued. See, e.g., Def. Ex. 2 at 63:2-64:12 ( altercation with teammate during spring of sophomore year); id. at 199:17-200:9 (recalling statement by Coach Munoz). Stafford recalls at least three reports to GWU officials, as well as evidence in the record that, he says, demonstrates that the University had heard his complaints.
First, Stafford testified that he complained to Coach Munoz about “racial discrimination” by his teammates in the fall of 2015. Def. SMF ¶ 60; Def. Ex. 2 at 59:9-15.
Second, Stafford's father recalled speaking about racial harassment on the team with Michael Tapscott, the Director of GWU's Multicultural Student Services Center, at some point that same year. See Pl. SMF ¶¶ 47-48; Def. Ex. 6 at 55:13-56:12 (recounting discussions of the experience of a “kid of color” on a largely white team); see also Def. SMF ¶¶ 61, 66; Def. Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 34 at 14:24-15:2, 20:13-19, 33:4-16 (Tapscott Dep.). Tapscott's memories of his interactions with the Staffords differ sharply. Tapscott testified that the elder Stafford's complaints focused entirely on how much playing time Jabari had received-not race. Def. SMF ¶¶ 66-67. Tapscott likewise reported that he separately spoke with Jabari, and in that conversation Jabari mentioned “derogatory comments” by fellow tennis players, but did not “specifically” tie them to issues of race. Id. ¶ 62. At the end of their conversations, Tapscott encouraged both Jabari and his father to reach out to Nicole Early, the administrator in the Athletics Department with whom the two had met the previous school year. Id. ¶¶ 63, 68. According to Tapscott, Jabari did not respond to any follow-up messages. Def. Ex. 34 at 29:10- 30:4.
Third, Stafford points to a January 2016 email exchange between two Athletics Department administrators-Early and Ed Scott, a Senior Associate Athletics Director-that, in his view, suggests the University was aware of ongoing discrimination. See Pl. Opp'n to Def. Mot. Summ J. (“Pl. Opp'n”) at 7, 17-18. In that email, Early advised Scott of a “disciplinary issue with Jabari Stafford, ” and warned that Stafford's father would “likely get involved” and “suggest that Jabari is being discriminated against.” Pl. Opp'n, Ex. L. Stafford construes this email as a response to his father's complaints about racism the previous semester, including to Tapscott. Pl. Opp'n at 7. The University rejoins that the email cannot be read to show Early knew about any actual claims of racial discrimination. Def. Reply at 12.
Finally Stafford testified to another discussion with Athletics Department administrators in March 2016, during his sophomore year, shortly after Coach Munoz left GWU and Torrie Browning took over as interim head coach. Def. SMF ¶ 69; Def. Ex. 2 at 196:5-18. That month, Stafford requested a meeting with Early to discuss why Browning had left him out of a tournament lineup. Def. SMF ¶¶ 70-71; Def. Ex. 2 at 203:5-206:4. At that meeting, Stafford recalled, he informed Early about the “racial rhetoric and . . . racial discrimination” he had been “forced to endure” under both Munoz...
To continue reading
Request your trial