WILLIAMSPORT – A former majorette at Penn State University who claimed she was subject to unrelenting sexual and gender harassment from her coach during her four-year tenure in the school’s band – and that school officials did nothing to stop the coach’s behavior – will have her case proceed, overcoming a dismissal motion from the university.
Kaitlyn Wassel of Hagerstown, Md. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 13 versus The Pennsylvania State University, of State College.
The crux of Wassel’s complaint is that Penn State officials were made aware of numerous claims of harassment perpetrated by the school’s then-majorette coach Heather Bean from 2018-2022, but those officials ignored the allegations and did not prevent or discipline Bean for her alleged conduct.
Bean served as the school’s majorette coach from 1994, until her resignation in the fall of 2022.
Wassel’s troubles began in the fall of 2018, according to her suit, when Bean proceeded to “fat-shame” her due to her weight, forced her to wear a uniform that was too small for her frame and refused to let the team seamstress alter it, despite Wassel growing four inches in height during her time in college.
“Bean routinely admonished Kaitlyn to be more like a squad member that had previously been reported to have an eating disorder. Bean told Kaitlyn she needed to lose weight and made it clear that she would need to change her body to fit the uniform. Kaitlyn subsequently developed disordered eating during her freshman year, which continued throughout her college years,” the suit said.
“During virtually every practice session, Bean reprimanded Kaitlyn about her eating, body shape and the fit of her uniform. She forced Kaitlyn to wear the ill-fitting uniform as a means to shame her and make her feel that she did not comport with what a woman should look like – routinely in front of her teammates. Bean further diminished Kaitlyn by comparing her to the smallest team members who she held out as the models of what females should look like. Bean’s weight and body size-related comments and conduct continued and persisted up to the Jan. 1, 2022, bowl game – Kaitlyn’s last majorette event.”
Furthermore, the suit detailed numerous alleged examples of harassment Bean engaged in towards Wassel, including but not limited to the following:
• When Wassel told Bean she had been sexually assaulted in the fall of 2018, Bean allegedly berated her and refused to report it as a mandatory reporter;
• When a lice infection broke out among team members, Bean said Wassel was responsible because “she was such a whore”;
• Bean allegedly called her on weekends, demanding to know what her plans were and who she would be socializing with, and regularly interrogated her on her personal and sexual life;
• Bean allegedly encouraged teammates to bully Wassel, provide personal information about her, told the other members of the team she was a bad person and regularly used degrading language towards her;
• Bean allegedly and repeatedly threatened to kick her off the team if she reported her to the university.
Due to the continued harassment and bullying, the suit said, Wassel attempted suicide in March 2021. During her ensuing hospital stay, her parents told Bean their daughter’s attempted suicide was caused by her conduct, told her to report the event to Director of the Penn State Blue Band and Athletic Bands, Dr. Gregory Drane, and not to share Wassel’s condition with the team.
Despite this, the suit said, Bean readily told the team about Wassel’s suicide attempt and referred to her as “dramatic” and a “faker.” Though Drane promised changes in Bean’s behavior and in the program, those promises never came to fruition, according to the lawsuit.
“In May of 2022, one week after her Penn State graduation, Kaitlyn initiated a complaint about Bean’s conduct during a meeting with Dr. Drane’s assistant, Assistant Athletic Band Director Miquelena Ferguson, and a human resource representative. Kaitlyn recounted Bean’s discriminatory conduct in detail and the retaliation she endured following her and her parents’ complaints to Bean and Drane,” the suit said.
“Kaitlyn received no response to the complaint as of August of 2022, and she decided to join every then-current, upper-class twirling team member and other twirling alumnus who were separately initiating complaints against Bean. The group, including Kaitlyn and other graduated majorettes, met with a Penn State Dean on the first day of the fall 2022 semester and Kaitlyn and others voiced complaints about both Bean and Drane. Kaitlyn and others complained about the gender-based harassment and the bullying Bean subjected them to and Drane’s refusal to protect them. Kaitlyn later received notice that Penn State’s Affirmative Action Office would be investigating. Kaitlyn and other team members participated in that investigation.”
Bean resigned from her role as Penn State’s majorette coach around this time.
Last February, the suit adds that Wassel received a letter disclosing the results of the school’s investigation into Bean.
Though investigators found Bean’s behavior did violate university policy, the school “could not substantiate the sexual discrimination and harassment complaints against Bean given that some of the interactions presented occurred without the presence of witnesses”, and the school said it “could not discipline her, because she had resigned from the university.”
Additionally, Wassel’s suit included claims detailing similar alleged behavior from Bean against four other Penn State majorettes.
On March 4, Penn State moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted and premised upon multiple points.
“Wassel’s Title IX claim against the University (Count I), which is either premised on a deliberate indifference or hostile environment theory of liability, must be dismissed for three reasons. First, Wassel fails to plead the essential element of any Title IX claim, i.e., that the alleged discrimination was on the basis of sex. Second, to the extent Count I is interpreted as a hostile environment Title IX claim, Wassel fails to plead conduct that deprived her of educational opportunities. Third, to the extent Count I is interpreted as a deliberate indifference Title IX claim, Wassel fails to establish that the University’s response to her complaint was ‘clearly unreasonable,” according to the motion.
“Count II fares no better: Wassel fails to plead both differential treatment on the basis of sex and Monell liability as necessary to state a claim against the University for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Wassel’s own allegations demonstrate that the University did not have a custom or practice of ‘deliberate indifference to sex-based discrimination in its programs.’ Moreover, Wassel’s own allegations (and the documents she references) reveal that any action by the University was not ‘sex-based,’ since the University’s alleged ‘custom or practice’ affected both men and women. The Court should dismiss Wassel’s complaint in its entirety.”
Per the motion, in pleading a sex-based discrimination claim, the University argued it is “not enough that Wassel is a woman, or that some of the alleged comments made by Bean attacked Wassel’s (or other majorettes’) femininity.”
“Such alleged misconduct, absent allegations that Bean made sexual advances or acted out of sexual desire, that Bean was motivated by general hostility to the presence of women on the team, or that Bean treated men and women on the team differently, cannot make out a claim for a violation of Title IX. Wassel does not allege that Coach Bean was motivated by sexual desire, and given that the majorettes were all women during the relevant period, Wassel also does not, and could not plausibly, allege that Bean was motivated by hostility toward the presence of Wassel, as a woman, on the team, or that Bean treated male and female majorettes differently,” the motion said.
“In addition, rude comments, alone, do not suffice. Owens v. Louisiana State University is instructive: In that case, the plaintiff-student alleged that the defendant-student called her ‘fat’ and a ‘pig.’ The Court determined that the plaintiff had ‘put the cart before the horse’ in arguing that she was deprived access to educational benefits, before addressing whether such deprivation was because of sex-based harassment. The Court determined that, although rude and inconsiderate, the comments about the plaintiff’s weight and looks did not constitute sexual harassment. The same was true about alleged bullying of plaintiff based on personal animus: Such allegations ‘do not trigger Title IX’s liability standard.’ As a result, the Owens court held that the plaintiff provided no evidence that the conduct, while rude and bullying, had any relation to the plaintiff’s sex.”
The University added that Wassel’s complaint “lacks any well-pleaded facts regarding a systematic deprivation of educational opportunities” and in fact, Wassel “participated on the majorette team for all four years, and graduated on time.”
The University further provided that the plaintiff’s equal protection claim should be dismissed on similar grounds as the Title IX claim.
UPDATE
In a May 7 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann denied Penn State’s dismissal motion I full, ruled that Wassel’s complaint could proceed and that she had plausibly alleged sex-based harassment claims in violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
“Penn State first argues that Wassel has not alleged any harassment based on sex, only sex-stereotypes. Its argument seems to hinge on the notion that ‘sex’ and ‘sex stereotypes’ are categorically distinct. This is wrong. Harassment based on noncompliance with sex stereotypes is harassment based on sex, and no additional showing is required that the harasser harbored animus against women because they are women,” Brann stated.
“As harassment based on noncompliance with sex stereotypes is harassment based on sex, Bean’s harassment plausibly violates Title IX if it is plausible that harassment based on Wassel’s perceived promiscuity and weight is based on Wassel’s non-compliance with sex stereotypes. Neither party disputes that Bean’s harassment was motivated by Wassel’s weight and her disclosure of the sexual assault. This inference is plausible because the complaint specifies that Bean’s remarks about Wassel’s weight and sexual assault were made contemporaneously with, and were themselves part of, her conduct of harassment. According to the complaint, Bean directly admitted to Wassel that she was harassing Wassel because she believed that Wassel was a ‘slut’ and a ‘whore’ and weighed too much.”
Brann added that that though the university argued Bean “would have had the same reaction if a male had disclosed premarital sex” because Bean’s views on premarital sex are religiously-motivated and not gender-motivated, Brann said the derogatory terms Bean used to describe Wassel were misogynistic in nature and thus, predicated on the plaintiff’s gender.
“The terms ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ usually refer to women. Though these derogatory terms themselves ‘do not mention gender, language which is facially neutral in semantic content can become suggestive of animus based on [its] historical connotation.’ It is obvious that such terms’ usage is misogynistic, based on sex stereotypes which are more critical of female promiscuity than male promiscuity. So Bean calling Wassel ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ following her sexual assault plausibly evidences that the harassment connected to these comments was sex-based,” Brann said.
“It is also plausible that Bean’s weight-based harassment was motivated by Wassel’s noncompliance with a sex-stereotype-based view of what a proper woman should look like. Bean excluded women who weighed more from photographs, forced them to wear uniforms that were too small to shame them for their weights, ‘compared [Wassel] to the smallest team members who she held out as the models of what females should look like,’ and, in contrast, complimented short and thin majorettes on their physiques. Wassel alleges that Bean harassed her because she ‘felt that women should be petite and razor-thin,’ and therefore viewed Wassel to be insufficiently feminine based on her physical appearance.”
Brann refuted the university’s claim that Wassel was not deprived of educational benefits due to the events in question, pointing to her suicide attempt, her grades slipping and her need to enroll in summer session classes on two occasions as “beyond sufficient to plausibly allege a deprivation of educational benefits.”
Brann also found that Wassel had plausibly alleged a claim of deliberate indifference, through the case’s claims “that Penn State took no further action to stop Bean’s sex-based harassment after Harris spoke with W2.”
For counts of deliberate indifference in violation of Title IX of the U.S. Constitution, violation of equal protection under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including but not limited to, damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, therapy expenses, loss of educational opportunities, and all other direct and consequential damages available, pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, costs and such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Andrew J. Shubin of Shubin Law, in State College.
The defendant is represented by Amy L. Piccola, James A. Keller and Tricia Marie Duffy of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:23-cv-02071
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com