PITTSBURGH – Trinity Area School District contends that amended litigation brought by a 16-year-old student and girls basketball player at Trinity High School, which alleged she was subject to retaliation after reporting allegations of a sexual assault committed against another student by a member of the boys’ basketball team, has not introduced more detailed information to support its claims.
M.D. (by and through her natural parents and guardians, Michael and Julie Ann Dotson) first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 4 versus Trinity Area School District, of Washington, Pa.
“M.D. is a 16-year-old minor, currently receiving education at Trinity High School, a public school in the Trinity Area School District. Michael and Julie Ann Dotson are the biological parents of M.D. Plaintiff M.D. is a female student on the girls’ basketball team at the high school. M.D. eventually received an injury and presented a doctor’s excuse prohibiting M.D. from doing anything physical. As a result, M.D. was excused from physical education and basketball practice,” the suit said.
“Coach Kathy encouraged M.D. to attend the games, and allowed M.D. to assist with drills, workout with the on-site trainers and manage the books during the basketball games. The basketball schedule for the 2021-2022 season included home games at the high school, as well as away games, away from the high school. During the away games, the school is responsible for the transportation and housing of the students. Adult supervision consists of school staff, including coaches and assistant coaches. The girls’ basketball team traveled to Washington D.C. for an away game.”
While out of town, the suit explained M.D. and other fellow basketball players learned about a sexual assault that occurred at a house party between a male basketball player and another student – learning this from the alleged perpetrator’s sister, and having the incident confirmed again to M.D. and the other girls’ basketball players by a friend of the alleged victim.
“As a result of this incident, the alleged victim, also a student in the high school, indicated she did not feel comfortable being left alone with the alleged male student perpetrator. Later that same day, Coach Kathy sent M.D. home and informed all the girls’ players in the locker room that the girls’ basketball game was cancelled because ‘a rumor was going around.’ The boys’ basketball game continued the following day and did not get cancelled. On or about Dec. 14, during a boys’ basketball game, a friend talked to M.D. about the allegations. Two trainers overheard the conversation. One of the trainers told someone in administration about the allegations,” the suit stated.
“The following day, Dec. 15, M.D. was called down to the office by Mr. Craig Uram, the Vice-Principal, and provided a written statement of what she knew. While completing her written statement, Mr. Uram asked M.D. how she would feel if her reputation could be ruined by this allegation. He also stated that he thought the allegation was simply a rumor. In the afternoon on Dec. 15, M.D. attended practice but was immediately sent home from practice. Coach Kathy claimed she was changing the practice and M.D. did not need to attend. The next day, Dec. 16, Mr. Rich called M.D. to his office, with Coach Kathy and told M.D. she could no longer attend practices or games because the school cannot handle a liability if M.D. were to get injured sitting on the bench.”
However, the suit added that there were other athletes on the girls’ basketball with injuries, yet no other athletes with injuries were prohibited from attending practices or games, and allegedly, Coach Kathy told other teammates not to talk to M.D.
“M.D.’s parents began seeing changes in their daughter’s behavior and conduct. M.D.’s grades dropped, and she talked about wanting to quit school and basketball forever. Administration officials and Coach Kathy have told M.D. that she looks depressed. M.D. has begun seeing a therapist and is currently attending school online. She has since been diagnosed with depression, due to not being able to participate in her favorite extracurricular activity,” the suit stated.
The District filed a motion for more definitive statements per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), related to 13 separate paragraphs in the complaint. Specifically, the District is seeking the following clarifying information:
• Paragraph 10: The date on which the injury occurred, date of doctor’s prohibition of physical activity, whether injury was sustained participating in basketball activities;
• Paragraph 11: The time frame during which Coach Kathy encouraged plaintiff to attend games, assist with workout and manage the books during basketball games;
• Paragraph 14: The date of the basketball game in Washington, D.C.;
• Paragraph 15: The identification of date and location of the alleged sexual assault, and initials of those involved, if minors;
• Paragraph 17: Clarification of when and to whom alleged victim indicated she did not feel comfortable being left alone with alleged male perpetrator;
• Paragraph 18: The date plaintiff was sent home, and date of cancelled game;
• Paragraph 20: The name of trainers who overheard M.D.’s conversation; to whom did the trainer report the allegations;
• Paragraph 21: Clarification of whether plaintiff’s statement was about the alleged sexual assault;
• Paragraph 26: The identities of teammates who were told to not talk to plaintiff;
• Paragraph 27: The identities of members of the Administration who told plaintiff that she looked depressed;
• Paragraph 33: The identities of District staff who denied plaintiff the opportunity to participate in the basketball game, and date of game;
• Paragraph 35: The identities of District staff who made intimidating comments to plaintiff;
• Paragraph 36: The identities of District staff who denied plaintiff the benefits of participating as a member of the basketball team.
“This motion is made on the ground that the complaint is so vague and/or ambiguous that defendant cannot reasonably be required to frame a response to it,” the motion stated.
UPDATE
Though the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 7, the District felt that it didn’t add new and detailed information to support the previous allegations.
“Plaintiff's amended complaint included a few additional facts not pled in the initial complaint, but those facts no substantive difference with regard to the allegations against the School District,” the District’s motion to dismiss, filed on July 21, said.
The District added the plaintiff did not adequately plead claims of discrimination against it.
“Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim that defendant, Trinity Area School District, discriminated against plaintiff. Title IX states, ‘No 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,” per the dismissal motion.
“Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to allege how plaintiff was excluded from participation in any activity in a discriminatory manner or how that purported discrimination was based on the sex of the plaintiff. A student’s claims for discrimination under Title IX will only survive if a student's factual allegations give rise to more than the sheer possibility that the defendants acted unlawfully.”
The District holds that an institution can be held liable for a Title IX violation only if “an official who…has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures…has actual knowledge of discrimination in the [institution’s] programs and fails adequately to respond” or displays “deliberate indifference” to discrimination.
“It is not alleged in the amended complaint that plaintiff complained of sex discrimination. Nor is it alleged that the School District failed to respond or remedy any purported discrimination following notification of sex discrimination by the plaintiff. Retaliation claims based upon a violation of Title IX have been recognized by the Supreme Court to exist for individuals who are not the subject of the sexual discrimination,” according to the District’s dismissal motion.
“Claims of retaliation under Title IX are considered ‘intentional discrimination’ and such an allegation is ‘intentional’ and not judged by the ‘deliberate indifference’ standard. Plaintiff has not stated allegations of intentional discrimination because she made a report of sexual harassment. The amended complaint only contains conclusory allegations of discrimination and does not allege that plaintiff was discriminated against because she is a female.”
For a count of Title IX discrimination based on sex or gender, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, other relief as deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court and a trial by jury for all causes of action and issues so triable.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jennifer O. Price of the Law Office of Jennifer O. Price, in Murrysville.
The defendant is represented by Susan T. Roberts and Eric VanKirk of Peacock Keller, in Washington, Pa.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00517
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com