T.C. ex rel. S.C. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 3:17-cv-01277,Civil No. 3:17-cv-01209,Civil No. 3:17-cv-01098,Civil No. 3:17-cv-01159 |
| Parties | T.C. ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, S.C., Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, D/B/A METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant. JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE #1 ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILD, JANE DOE #2, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, D/B/A METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant. SALLY DOE ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, SALLY DOE #2, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, D/B/A METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant. MARY DOE #1 ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, MARY DOE #2, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, D/B/A METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
LEAD CASE
Member Case
MEMORANDUMPending before the court in these consolidated cases are five sealed Motions for Summary Judgment. Four Motions for Summary Judgment were filed by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County d/b/a/ Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools ("MNPS"). (Doc. No. 71 (regarding S.C.1); Doc. No. 76 (regarding Jane Doe); Doc. No. 82 (regarding Mary Doe); Doc. No. 83 (regarding Sally Doe).) Jane Doe, Sally Doe, and Mary Doe collectively filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 87) regarding a portion of their claims. On May 6, 2019, following briefing on the Motions, the court entered an Order granting MNPS summary judgment with regard to one of Sally Doe's claims and otherwise denying all five motions. (Doc. No. 102.) On June 11, 2019, the court granted MNPS aCertificate of Appealability regarding its ruling. (Doc. No. 112.) On January 24, 2020, the Sixth Circuit granted permission to appeal, vacated this court's order, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees, 944 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2019). (Doc. No. 113.) At the direction of the court, the parties filed Supplemental Briefs regarding the effect of Kollaritsch (Doc. Nos. 122 (plaintiffs' joint Brief), 123 (MNPS's Brief). For the reasons set out herein, the court will deny the plaintiffs' motion, grant MNPS's motions regarding Sally Doe and Jane Doe, and grant in part and deny in part MNPS's motions regarding Mary Doe and S.C.
"Section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), provides that '[n]o 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.'" Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 465-66 (1999). Title IX, like other federal antidiscrimination laws,3 recognizes that discrimination can, in some cases, take the form of harassment. See Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 639 (1999). In 2016 and 2017, at least four female MNPS students, all minors, were videotaped4 by other students while engaged in sexualencounters with male students on the premises of their respective MNPS schools. The resulting video files were circulated among the students' peers electronically. The plaintiffs, through their parents, have sued MNPS, arguing that its handling of the matters and general approach to harassment at its schools led to the deprivation of the plaintiffs' rights under Title IX and their constitutional rights to equal protection.
Federal regulations require that a recipient of funding under Title IX "shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under [Title IX rules], including any investigation of any complaint communicated to such entity alleging its noncompliance with [Title IX rules] or alleging any action which would be prohibited by [Title IX rules]." 45 C.F.R. § 83.15(a). That employee is known as the recipient's "Title IX coordinator." The funding recipient must "notify all of its students and employees who work directly with students and applicants for admission of the name, office address and telephone number of the" Title IX coordinator. Id. MNPS's Title IX coordinator, from 2012 through the 2016-17 school year, was Julie McCargar. (Doc. No. 92-25 at 18, 24.)
McCargar testified that she and others in her office received outside training and worked closely with the city's legal department in understanding how to conduct Title IX investigations. (Id. at 50.) She testified that, in contrast, principals and assistant principals did not, to her knowledge, receive training regarding how to conduct a Title IX investigation until late in her tenure as coordinator. (Id. at 50.) Principals and assistant principals also were not required to read the Dear Colleague letters that the Title IX coordinator was expected to read to stay abreast of federal Title IX policy. (Id. at 51-52.) Phyllis Dyer, who worked with McCargar and succeeded her as Title IX coordinator, explained that principals did finally receive some trainingat some time around or after May 2016. (Doc. No. 92-18 at 54).
Even before they received training, however, the principals and assistant principals were permitted to perform Title IX investigations themselves, rather than relying on the Title IX coordinator. (Doc. No. 92-25 at 53, 59-60.) McCargar further testified that she could not recall ever telling the principals to contact her when they became aware of possible Title IX violations. (Id. at 59.) If the principal determined that an incident did, in fact, rise to the level of a Title IX violation, only then would the principal inform the coordinator. (Id. at 79-82.)
The plaintiffs suggest, persuasively, that the policy McCargar described violated the guidance that had been provided by the U.S. Department of Education's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in a Dear Colleague Letter issued on April 24, 2015. (Doc. No. 1-5.) According to the letter, a Title IX funding recipient "must inform the Title IX coordinator of all reports and complaints raising Title IX issues, even if the complaint was initially filed with another individual or office or the investigation will be conducted by another individual or office." (Id. at 3 (emphasis added).) As the plaintiffs point out, the universe of complaints raising Title IX issues is presumably significantly larger than the universe of complaints where a principal has made an affirmative finding of a confirmed Title IX violation. This may be especially true where the principal has not received sufficient Title IX training and therefore fails to identify some Title IX concerns.
When asked about MNPS's compliance with the Department of Education's guidance, McCargar admitted that she was not informed of all complaints "raising Title IX issues," if "informed" meant that she was directly contacted in writing or by phone. While she did receive direct notice of cases where principals ultimately concluded that a violation had occurred, she was not informed in that manner where a complaint raised Title IX issues, but the principalultimately found no violation. (Doc. No. 92-25 at 95.) Rather, McCargar explained, she had interpreted the Department's guidance as requiring only that incidents that had raised Title IX issues, but that principals had not deemed to be violations, be entered into a "student management system," to which the coordinator had access. (Id. at 96.)
Dyer, as McCargar's successor, provided some context regarding how the Title IX coordinator's duties were structured during the relevant time period. Dyer explained that, while MNPS, as required, did have a designated Title IX coordinator, Title IX coordinator was not that person's sole job. Rather, the duties of Title IX coordinator were rolled into the job of the executive director of federal programs, who is responsible for ensuring that federal funding from all applicable federal programs, not just Title IX, is obtained and integrated into MNPS's budget. (Doc. No. 92-18 at 22.) Title IX does not require the Title IX coordinator to perform that job full-time. The April 24, 2015 Dear Colleague Letter, however, addressed the benefits of doing so:
Designating a full-time Title IX coordinator will minimize the risk of a conflict of interest and in many cases ensure sufficient time is available to perform all the role's responsibilities. If a recipient designates one employee to coordinate the recipient's compliance with Title IX and other related laws, it is critical that the employee has the qualifications, training, authority, and time to address all complaints throughout the institution, including those raising Title IX issues.
(Doc. No. 1-5 at 3.) Dyer admitted that there were many days when she did not devote any time to Title IX matters, with weeks sometimes passing without her performing any Title IX-specific duties. (Doc. No. 92-18 at 22, 36.) When asked whether it was "true that [she] spend[s] most of [her] time making sure that [the multimillion-dollar federal funding figure for a particular year] is received by [the] Metro school system," Dyer responded, "Yes." (Id. at 23.) When asked about the division of responsibilities between principals and the coordinator, Dyer's position largely echoed McCargar's, with the coordinator's responsibilities only arising after a principalaffirmatively determined that a violation occurred. (Id. at 64-65.) She confirmed that she, like McCargar, was not made aware of the incidents at issue in these cases. (Id. at 89-91.)
Mary Doe and Jane Doe were freshmen at Maplewood High School when, on September 21, 2016, they were part of a sexual encounter involving the two of them and four older male...
To continue reading
Request your trial