Stewart v. Wash. State Univ.
| Decision Date | 26 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. C18-557-RSM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | DOMINIQUE STEWART, an individual, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, a state educational institute, Defendant. |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Washington State University ("WSU")'s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. #26. Plaintiff Dominique Stewart opposes. Dkt. #32. WSU also moves to strike certain declarations and exhibits attached to Ms. Stewart's opposition. Dkt. #36. Oral argument was heard on March 21, 2019. Dkt. #52. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS WSU's Motion and finds that WSU's Motion to Strike is moot.1
Plaintiff Stewart was enrolled at WSU from the Fall of 2014 to Spring of 2018. Dkt. #27-1 ("Plaintiff Dep."), 10:3-14, 168:14-24. She is African-American. Dkt. #3 at ¶3.2.
The night of Saturday, February 21, 2015, Ms. Stewart and several of her friends went to an event at the Phi Delta Theta fraternity located off-campus. Dkt. #31-1, Ex. 1, ¶ 1. In the early morning hours of February 22, 2015, a white male student who was a member of the fraternity confronted Ms. Stewart while she was waiting for her friends to exit the house. Dkt. #31-1 at 37. According to Ms. Stewart, this student said "why are all these nigger bitches around my house," and later "I said, get the fuck away from me you nigger bitch." Id. He then slammed the door on her.
On Monday, February 23, Ms. Stewart met with members of Phi Delta Theta and identified the white male as a member of the fraternity; he was then kicked out of the fraternity. See Plaintiff Dep. at 39:10-20, 44:23-48:24.
By Tuesday, February 24, the University's Interim Vice President for Student Affairs, Melynda Huskey, learned of the incident and assembled a team of WSU administrators to respond. See Dkt. #31 at ¶9. Dr. Huskey took several actions that day. See Dkt. #31-1. Both the University's Office for Equal Opportunity ("OEO") and the University's Office of Student Conduct began to investigate the incident. Dr. Huskey facilitated a meeting between the President of the University's Black Student Union, the Phi Delta Theta fraternity president, the Associate Director of the SMART START Program/Retention Counselor and African American Student Center, Donna Arnold, and other University administrators. See id.
On February 25, 2015, approximately 100 students, including Ms. Stewart, held a one-hour silent rally on campus to raise awareness about "racism, classism, sexism, ableism, gender discrimination, religious discrimination, etc..." See Plaintiff Dep. at 61:7-65:10, 74:16-25. After this event, Ms. Stewart alleges she experienced backlash on social media, including racialand sexist slurs. Dkt. # 32 at 4. She maintains that she sought assistance from WSU in dealing with this harassment and was provided with none. Id.
On March 2, 2015, Dr. Huskey met with Ms. Stewart and her mother. Dkt. #34 at ¶ 15. At that meeting, Ms. Stewart's mother requested that the University provide Ms. Stewart with a new dormitory room closer to the Student Recreation Center and her classes. Id. Dr. Huskey agreed to do so. Id.
On March 5, 2015, Dr. Huskey provided Ms. Stewart and her mother with a written resource guide detailing several sources of University assistance to address the effects of the February 22 incident. Id. at ¶ 18. Those resources included counseling and testing services, health and wellness services, accommodation services, and emergency services. Id.
Dr. Huskey also provided Ms. Stewart the names of two additional University officials who could meet with her: Donna Arnold, the Director of the University's African-American Student Center, and Karen Fischer, the University's Associate Dean of Students. Id. at ¶ 19. Dr. Huskey ensured that Ms. Arnold could meet with Ms. Stewart and provide perspective and support. Id. at ¶23. Thereafter, Ms. Stewart had "a couple of" meetings with Ms. Arnold. Plaintiff Dep. at 108:25-109:7, 154:10-13. Ms. Stewart also met with Dean Fischer "a couple of times." Id. at 105:5-8, 106:18-22.
On March 10, 2015, the Phi Delta Theta fraternity underwent mandatory diversity/sensitivity training. Dkt. #28 at 2; Plaintiff's Dep. at 159:12-15. This training was conducted by the Director of Diversity Education, Jeff Guillory. Id. Members of the fraternity were also required to undergo separate bystander intervention training. Dkt. #31 at ¶ 13.
On March 29, 2015, Plaintiff Stewart was walking off-campus when a car full of unidentified males drove by, and one of them threw a chicken nugget at her while shouting"nigger THOT!2" Plaintiff Dep. at 135:1-22. The Pullman police department contacted Ms. Stewart, but she could not identify the individuals in the vehicle as students or otherwise, and she could not provide a license plate number for the vehicle. Id. at 144:7-20, 145:22-146:17. The WSU police contacted Pullman police to follow up on this incident. Dkt. #30 at ¶ 5. The Pullman police department located a vehicle that matched the vehicle Ms. Stewart described, but determined after investigation the individuals associated with the vehicle were not involved in the March 29 incident. Id.
On April 2, 2015, Ms. Stewart met with WSU's President, Elson Floyd. Plaintiff Dep. at 98:22-99:11. Other individuals at this meeting included Jeff Guillory and Ms. Stewart's female friends who had been present at the Phi Delta Theta incident. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the incident at Phi Delta Theta on February 22.
The parties hotly contest how to characterize this discussion, which was surreptitiously recorded by Ms. Stewart. For purposes of this Motion, the Court can rely on Ms. Stewart's characterization and transcript of this meeting. Ms. Stewart asserts Mr. Floyd stated that he had "no jurisdiction" over the Phi Delta Theta and other fraternities off campus. See Dkt. #32 at 4. The transcript submitted by Ms. Stewart indicates Mr. Floyd stated that he wanted to get jurisdiction over the fraternities, but "as president, I don't have any control over it." Dkt. #33-1 at 30-33. Ms. Stewart also argues that Mr. Floyd and Mr. Guillory "used the occasion to shame the victims for socializing with Caucasians at fraternities." Dkt. #32 at 4.
Ms. Stewart and her mother had further meetings with Dr. Huskey, the WSU chief of police, and other university staff that same day. Dkt. #31-1 at 30-32; Plaintiff Dep. at 109:8-110:1. Ms. Stewart's mother requested 24-hour police security for her daughter, but this was declined for lack of resources. Dkt. #30 at 2. At the conclusion of these meetings, Dr. Huskeyprovided Ms. Stewart with referral information for the Student Counseling Center, Health and Wellness Center, Access Center, and Pullman Police Department. Dkt. #31-1 at 34. Dr. Huskey discussed options for Ms. Stewart to withdraw from some courses or even to withdraw from the university altogether. Id.
After the April 2 meeting, President Floyd authorized Mr. Guillory to hire DaVina Hoyt to support and provide leadership development opportunities to Ms. Stewart and the other women who were present at the fraternity. See id. at 32.
On April 9, 2015, the OEO completed its investigation, which concluded that the student who had insulted Ms. Stewart on February 22 violated WSU's policy prohibiting discrimination. Dkt. #31-1 at 37-56. The OEO sent the report to the University's Office of Student Conduct. On April 30, 2015, the Office of Student Conduct concluded the student who racially and sexually insulted Ms. Stewart on February 22 violated WSU's student conduct standards. Dkt. #31 at 8. WSU then expelled him. Id. The student went through an appeals process and WSU upheld the expulsion. Id.; Dkt. #31-1 at 63-65. Ms. Stewart is aware of the student's expulsion, appeal, and WSU upholding the expulsion. Plaintiff Dep. at 129:22-130:9.
Ms. Stewart graduated from the University in the Spring of 2018 with a 3.1 grade point average. Id. at 168:14-169:4.
Plaintiff Stewart filed this case on April 16, 2018. Dkt. #1. Her Amended Complaint states the following causes of action: violation of Title VI (40 U.S.C. § 2000d), violation of Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681), violation of the Clery Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092), and the common law torts of outrage and negligence. Dkt. #3.
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Material facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In ruling on summary judgment, a court does not weigh evidence to determine the truth of the matter, but "only determine[s] whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Crane v. Conoco, Inc., 41 F.3d 547, 549 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. O'Melveny & Meyers, 969 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1992)).
On a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence and draws inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Sullivan v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, 365 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See O'Melveny & Meyers, 969 F.2d at 747, rev'd on other grounds, 512 U.S. 79 (1994). However, the nonmoving party must make a "sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof" to survive summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
The Court will first address Ms. Stewart's Title VI and Title IX claims. Davis Next Friend. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 119 S. Ct. 1661 (1999) sets forth the basic standard for such claims:
[F]unding recipients are...
To continue reading
Request your trial