PITTSBURGH – Trinity Area School District has been granted summary judgment dismissal, in litigation brought by a 16-year-old student and girls basketball player at Trinity High School who alleged she was subjected to retaliation after alleging a sexual assault committed against another student by a member of the boys basketball team.
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, 2022 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 said, filed on July 21, 2022.
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.”
On Oct. 14, 2022, 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
On June 14, Horan granted the defense’s prior motion for summary judgment, which had been filed on Jan. 26.
In that motion, the District argued that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title IX, because “she cannot establish that defendant took any adverse action against her, or that a causal connection existed between plaintiff’s report of information about an alleged sexual assault and the alleged adverse action taken against her.”
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title IX, a plaintiff must show: “(1) That he or she engaged in protected activity; (2) The defendant had knowledge of the protected activity; (3) Adverse school-related action was taken against plaintiff; and (4) A causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.”
“First, the Court will address whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact that M.D.’s allegations of retaliatory actions, i.e. the comments made by Mr. Uram to M.D. while she was making her written statement, and M.D.’s removal from the Trinity girls’ basketball team, were adverse actions. As to the comments, it is undisputed that when interviewing M.D. on Dec. 15, 2021, Mr. Uram made certain comments to M.D., while she was making her written statement about the alleged sexual assault. In her amended complaint, M.D. alleged that they were ‘intimidating’ and ‘could have the effect of preventing her from continuing to participate in the process.’ During her deposition, M.D. testified that Mr. Uram did not give her any guidance or direction on what to say in her written statement. M.D. further testified that Mr. Uram’s comments did not influence the contents of her statement,” Horan said.
“In her deposition, M.D. testified that Mr. Uram’s comments about why someone might make up a rumor were intended to ‘talk [M.D.] out of’ making the statement. However, M.D. was not dissuaded from making her statement. In fact, M.D. provided a written statement during that same interview; and, testified that the statements made by Mr. Uram did not affect what she wrote about the alleged sexual assault. These statements do not constitute a materially adverse action that would dissuade a reasonable person from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Thus, M.D. fails to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists that the comments made by Mr. Uram to M.D. while she was making her written statement were materially adverse. As such, plaintiff fails to establish the adverse action element for her retaliation claim related to the comments made by Mr. Uram. As to M.D.’s removal from the basketball team, this action is a materially adverse action. Defendant argues that M.D.’s removal from the girls’ basketball team is not an adverse action, because M.D. had failed to provide a doctor’s note that described the extent of her injuries. Such argument is related to the reason such an action was taken, but not as to whether the action itself is considered adverse. As such, plaintiff has sufficiently set forth an adverse action to satisfy the first element of a prima facie case for retaliation.”
Next, the Court addressed whether a causal connection exists between M.D.’s statement made about the alleged sexual assault and her removal from the Trinity girls’ basketball team.
“M.D. alleges that she was removed from the basketball team because she reported the alleged sexual assault to Mr. Uram. M.D. argues that the circumstances of her removal from the team, specifically, the proximity in time from her written statement and her removal, establish a temporal basis to establish a causal connection between the two. In support of this claim, she testified that on Dec. 15, 2021, the same day M.D. met with Mr. Uram and made her written statement, Coach Miller informed the Trinity girls’ basketball team that the game scheduled for Dec. 16, 2021, was cancelled, because a ‘rumor was going around.’ M.D. also alleges that, on Dec. 15, 2021, she was sent home from practice by Coach Miller, because she was not required to attend. Then, on Dec. 16, 2021, M.D. was informed by Mr. Rich and Coach Miller that she could no longer participate on the girls’ basketball team, unless she provided a doctor’s note which described the extent of her injuries and restrictions,” Horan stated.
“The record evidence supports that the Dec. 16, 2021 basketball game, was cancelled, following a request from the opposing team because of a quarantine of several opposition players due to an outbreak of COVID-19. This is detailed in Mr. Rich’s affidavit, which includes text messages from Harry Kaufman, the Athletic Director from the opposing team, Uniontown Area High School. Further, it is undisputed that, when Mr. Rich made his decision that M.D. could no longer attend practices and/or games without a doctor’s note describing M.D.’s injuries and setting forth details of her restrictions, he was not aware of any ongoing sexual assault investigation by Mr. Uram or of M.D.’s involvement in said investigation. It is also undisputed that, when M.D. was informed of Mr. Rich’s decision at the Dec. 16, 2021 meeting, she was told that she was not being permanently removed from the team or punished, and that she could return to the team once a compliant doctor’s note was provided. As such, based upon the record evidence, there is no genuine issue of material fact present to support M.D.’s causation element for her retaliation claim. For this reason, M.D.’s retaliation claim fails.”
Horan added that “even if M.D. had established a prima facie case for retaliation, she fails to provide sufficient record evidence to support that Trinity’s non-retaliatory reason for removing her from the girls’ basketball team, i.e. that she failed to provide a doctor’s note describing the extent of her injuries, was pre-textual [and] M.D. provides only two instances to support that her removal from the girls’ basketball team was pre-textual.”
“First, M.D.’s own testimony that Mr. Uram made ‘intimidating’ statements when she was making her written statement about the alleged sexual assault. Second, M.D.’s testimony that Coach Miller told the team that the Dec. 16, 2021 basketball game was being cancelled because of ‘a rumor going around.’ However, it is undisputed that Mr. Rich, who was unaware of the investigation related to the alleged sexual assault, made the decision to remove M.D. from the girls’ basketball team until she provided a doctor’s note describing the extent of her injuries and restrictions. Further, Mr. Rich’s affidavit and text messages with Mr. Kaufman support that the Dec. 16, 2021 girls’ basketball game was cancelled because several opposing players had contracted COVID-19. Such evidence supports the legitimacy of defendant’s reasons for precluding M.D. from team practices and games. Thus, the record does not provide sufficient evidence to present any question of material fact to show that Trinity’s reason for removing M.D. from the girls’ basketball team was pre-textual,” Horan concluded.
“M.D. has not met her burden to establish a genuine issue of material fact that her removal from the Trinity girls’ basketball team was causally connected to her statement made to Mr. Uram about the alleged sexual assault. Thus, M.D. fails to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title IX as regards Mr. Uram’s comments and her removal from the girls’ basketball team. Further, even if she had successfully established a prima facie case, she fails to establish that Trinity’s non-retaliatory reason was pre-textual.”
Horan then granted the summary judgment motion and closed the case.
The plaintiffs were represented by Jennifer O. Price of the Law Office of Jennifer O. Price, in Murrysville.
The defendant was 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