PITTSBURGH – Trinity Area School District has answered litigation brought by a 16-year-old student and girls basketball player at Trinity High School, that alleged she was subjected to retaliation after alleging a sexual assault committed against another student by a member of the boys basketball team, by countering that her claims are insufficient.
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. 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.”
Plaintiff counsel filed an opposing response to the dismissal motion on Aug. 11.
“This court should deny defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state claim because sufficient allegations give rise to an inference of a Violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Defendants request this Honorable Court to dismiss the complaint claiming plaintiff does not have a right to participate in the investigation; however, that is not the language of the Act. Title IX prohibits retaliation based on an individual’s right or privilege contained within the statute,” the response stated.
“In this case, M.D. was participating in the investigation of an alleged sexual assault pursuant to a privilege M.D. possessed under the statute. Participating in an investigation as a witness is protected activity delineated within the statute. Also, defendants request a dismissal alleging plaintiff did not provide notice to the District about any retaliation claims. While this statement is true, the purpose of notice is to demonstrate actual knowledge, and the District had actual knowledge. In this case, an employee of the secondary school was also a witness to the retaliation, Coach Kathy.”
According to the plaintiff, the defendant “wants the benefit of a dismissal without affording plaintiff the benefit of discovery.”
“Discovery could show all communication, within the District, that lead up to the decision to prohibit M.D. from participating on the basketball team. Discovery could also show the roster of students who were allowed to continue to support the team, even as an injured athlete, but did not participate in the investigation. All in all, defendant requests plaintiff to present a comparative analysis, which is not necessary at the prima facie stage. Plaintiff has presented more than ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.’ Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied,” the response said.
On Oct. 14, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Marilyn J. Horan partially granted the defense’s motion to dismiss – throwing out the Title IX gender discrimination claim (though providing leave to amend) and retaining the plaintiff’s retaliation claim. As to her Title IX retaliation claim, however, Horan found that such a claim was pled substantively.
UPDATE
Before outlining its affirmative defenses, the District provided that the plaintiff had transferred to the Bentworth Area School District this past September, and was no longer attending the Trinity Area School District or was a member of the Trinity High School girls basketball team.
It further denied that the plaintiff presented a doctor’s excuse dated Sept. 23, 2021 to anyone at the defendant School District, that indicated that plaintiff was prohibited from doing anything physical – and that, to the contrary, at no time did plaintiff produce a doctor’s note to anyone at defendant School District, despite repeated requests made by plaintiff’s basketball coach, Kathy McConnell-Miller, that plaintiff do so.
“Plaintiff has failed to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no direct or proximate causal connection between any claim of harm or injury alleged by the plaintiff and any acts alleged to have been committed by the defendant School District. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because plaintiff has not suffered damages as a result of the matters complained of in her amended complaint. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, are the result of her own improper conduct and actions. Plaintiff can prove no policy of the District sufficient to establish liability pursuant to Title IX of the Education Act of 1972. Plaintiff’s policies, where applicable, were not applied unequally to plaintiff. No act, action or omission of the defendant School District was the proximate or legal of cause of any damage sustained by the plaintiff,” the answer’s affirmative defenses stated, in part.
“Defendant School District at all times did not engage in discrimination against plaintiff based on her sex. Defendant School District at all times did not engage in retaliation against plaintiff based on her sex or any other factor. Plaintiff was not excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination or retaliation in an educational program. Plaintiff was not subjected to different treatment when compared to other similarly-situated students. The defendant School District did not retaliate against plaintiff, because plaintiff provided a statement in the course of the defendant School District’s investigation of an alleged sexual assault. Plaintiff failed to follow the proper procedures set forth by the defendant School District for a student athlete to report injuries to the appropriate District personnel.”
The answer continued that the alleged discrimination and retaliation by the defendant School District did not unreasonably interfere with the plaintiff’s school performance, and both that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and cannot prove that she was denied equal access to educational resources and opportunities at the School District.
For counts of Title IX discrimination based on sex or gender and retaliation, 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