TITLE IX ADMINISTRATORS
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
TITLE IX ADMINISTRATORS
NETWORK
Elizabeth Trayner, Ed. D.
Director of Equitable Rights & Responsibilities/Title IX
Coordinator
University of the Pacific
(She, her, Hers)
March 28, 2022
DISCUSSION ITEMS
•
Show and Tell
•
VAWA Reauthorization
•
NCAA Title IX Ad at Oscars
•
What else is on your mind?
CASE UPDATES
Case Law Updates
Doe v. Shippensburg Univ. of Pa. (M.D. Pa. 2022)
•
Doe is a masters degree student and student employee of the university
•
Roe is Doe’s supervisor and an assistant dean
•
Roe’s supervisor is the department dean
•
After attending an out-of-town conference, Doe made a report to the Dean
regarding inappropriate behavior that Roe had exhibited while away at the
conference
Case Law Updates
DOE V. SHIPPENSBURG UNIV. OF PA. (M.D. PA.
2022)
•
Doe specifically alleges that Roe:
•
Repeatedly made sexual advances toward her
•
Asked her to participate in a menage a trois
•
Asked her for her room key
•
Shortly after sharing this information with the Dean, Doe’s employment
with the University was terminated
•
Roe was also placed on administrative leave following an investigation
into the matter
Case Law Updates
Doe v. Shippensburg Univ. of Pa. (M.D. Pa. 2022)
•
Doe files complaint alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment under T9 as well
as other state law claims related to emotional distress
•
The University filed for summary judgment
•
Court reviews standard for quid pro quo sexual harassment under T9 and finds
that Doe will survive the motion for SJ
•
However, Doe must also prove notice and deliberate indifference
Case Law Updates
Doe v. Shippensburg Univ. of Pa. (M.D. Pa. 2022)
•
N
otice – An appropriate person, at a minimum, is an official with authority to
take corrective action
•
Deliberate Indifference – An official decision not to remedy any type of
discrimination or a clearly unreasonable response to actual notice of
harassment
•
University clearly has “notice” but with respect to deliberate indifference it is
unclear whether the university responded reasonably
•
Summary judgment with regard to T9 claim denied
Case Law Updates
Stevens v. Brigham Young University-Idaho (D. Idaho 2022)
•
Plaintiff enters college with prior history of abusive relationships causing
her to suffer from mental health issues, severe anxiety, agoraphobia,
and PTSD
•
All of Plaintiffs professors were made aware of this at the time of her
enrollment at BYU when they were informed of her needed
accommodations
•
Stokes – a social work faculty member, established a relationship with
Plaintiff because he knew her deceased father and the relationship
eventually turned sexual
Case Law Updates
Stevens v. Brigham Young University-Idaho (D. Idaho 2022)
•
This relationship exacerbated Plaintiff’s existing trauma and she
frequently ended up in the hospital as a result of her “relationship” with
Stokes
•
Plaintiff eventually sought the advice of a mutual friend of her and
Stokes’
•
In turn, the mutual friend shared the information with two different
counselors at BYU but she did not make any official report or
complaint
Case Law Updates
Stevens v. Brigham Young University-Idaho (D. Idaho 2022)
•
One of the counselors indicated a duty to report and eventually a
meeting was had between Plaintiff and the Dept. Chair
•
Stokes was interviewed but based on the information provided – no
official T9 investigation was launched
•
The abuse continues until Stokes passes away due to complications
from a medical procedure
•
Plaintiff eventually files claim against BYU sexual harassment under T9,
under the Rehab Act, the ADA, and relevant state law
Case Law Updates
Stevens v. Brigham Young University-Idaho (D. Idaho 2022)
•
The ADA and Rehab claims were dismissed right away
•
As to the T9 claims the court found genuine disputes of material facts –
BYU argued there was no official “notice” and no “deliberate
indifference”
•
Court disagreed with notice argument – plenty of BYU staff members
were aware
•
Court disagrees with no deliberate indifference because counselors
failed to elevate Plaintiff’s complaint to the appropriate channels and
BYU further failed to take corrective action
CASE STUDIES
“CREEPY” BEHAVIOR
•
Leslie, student comes to you to report that Bobby, another student, has been
exhibiting “creepy” behavior. Leslie and Bobby work together at the coffee
shop on campus and Bobby is responsible for scheduling the student
employees. When you inquire about the type of behavior that has been
observed Leslie tells you that Bobby has been offering to purchase items for
Leslie such as food, clothes, etc. Leslie also reports that Bobby has been
scheduling them to work together when Bobby knows that the two of them
will be alone. Additionally, Bobby has been seen driving past Leslie’s
apartment on several occasions. Finally, Leslie shares that Bobby pays a lot
of attention to the bodies of her female coworkers. Leslie wants the behavior
to stop and does not want to continue to work with Bobby.
•
Another female student confirmed that she has experienced similar behavior
but is not interested in initiating any kind of complaint.
•
What steps might you take in this situation?
SEX- OR GENDER-BASED HAZING
•
You receive an anonymous report from a Potential New Member (PNM) for a
sorority on campus. The information you receive states that all PNMs were
required to participate in a scavenger hunt. One of the items in the
scavenger hunt was to provide photographs of individuals engaged in
sexual acts or in a state of undress. The anonymous report states that the
scavenger hunt was required in order to be initiated into the organization.
•
What steps might you take as Title IX Coordinator?
•
Would this be referred to another office or would it fall under the policies
within your office?
ADVISOR AS A WITNESS
•
One of the Parties in a Title IX Investigation wants to utilize a witness as their
Advisor. What would you do?
THANK YOU
•
These materials and all discussions of these materials are for instructional
purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice,
you should contact your attorney.
•
All attendees at the March 28, 2022 virtual meeting of the Northern California
Title IX Administrators Network are hereby granted permission to post a copy
of these materials to their institution’s website solely for purposes of
compliance with 34 CFR §106.45(b)(10)(i)(D). These materials are not
intended to be used by anyone for their own training purposes. Use of this
material for proprietary reasons is strictly prohibited.
Updates on the case of Doe v. Shippensburg Univ. of PA (M.D. PA 2022) involving allegations of sexual harassment and termination of employment. The case discusses quid pro quo harassment under Title IX, notice, deliberate indifference, and the court's review of the summary judgment filed by the university.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TITLE IX ADMINISTRATORS NETWORK Elizabeth Trayner, Ed. D. Director of Equitable Rights & Responsibilities/Title IX Coordinator University of the Pacific (She, her, Hers) March 28, 2022
DISCUSSION ITEMS Show and Tell VAWA Reauthorization NCAA Title IX Ad at Oscars What else is on your mind?
Doe v. Shippensburg Univ. of Pa. (M.D. Pa. 2022) Doe is a masters degree student and student employee of the university Roe is Doe s supervisor and an assistant dean Roe s supervisor is the department dean After attending an out-of-town conference, Doe made a report to the Dean regarding inappropriate behavior that Roe had exhibited while away at the conference Case Law Updates
DOE V. SHIPPENSBURG UNIV. OF PA. (M.D. PA. DOE V. SHIPPENSBURG UNIV. OF PA. (M.D. PA. 2022) 2022) Doe specifically alleges that Roe: Repeatedly made sexual advances toward her Asked her to participate in a menage a trois Asked her for her room key Shortly after sharing this information with the Dean, Doe s employment with the University was terminated Roe was also placed on administrative leave following an investigation into the matter Case Law Updates
Doe v. Shippensburg Univ. of Pa. (M.D. Pa. 2022) Doe files complaint alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment under T9 as well as other state law claims related to emotional distress The University filed for summary judgment Court reviews standard for quid pro quo sexual harassment under T9 and finds that Doe will survive the motion for SJ However, Doe must also prove notice and deliberate indifference Case Law Updates
Doe v. Shippensburg Univ. of Pa. (M.D. Pa. 2022) Notice An appropriate person, at a minimum, is an official with authority to take corrective action Deliberate Indifference An official decision not to remedy any type of discrimination or a clearly unreasonable response to actual notice of harassment University clearly has notice but with respect to deliberate indifference it is unclear whether the university responded reasonably Summary judgment with regard to T9 claim denied Case Law Updates
Stevens v. Brigham Young University-Idaho (D. Idaho 2022) Plaintiff enters college with prior history of abusive relationships causing her to suffer from mental health issues, severe anxiety, agoraphobia, and PTSD All of Plaintiffs professors were made aware of this at the time of her enrollment at BYU when they were informed of her needed accommodations Stokes a social work faculty member, established a relationship with Plaintiff because he knew her deceased father and the relationship eventually turned sexual Case Law Updates
Stevens v. Brigham Young University-Idaho (D. Idaho 2022) This relationship exacerbated Plaintiff s existing trauma and she frequently ended up in the hospital as a result of her relationship with Stokes Plaintiff eventually sought the advice of a mutual friend of her and Stokes In turn, the mutual friend shared the information with two different counselors at BYU but she did not make any official report or complaint Case Law Updates
Stevens v. Brigham Young University-Idaho (D. Idaho 2022) One of the counselors indicated a duty to report and eventually a meeting was had between Plaintiff and the Dept. Chair Stokes was interviewed but based on the information provided no official T9 investigation was launched The abuse continues until Stokes passes away due to complications from a medical procedure Plaintiff eventually files claim against BYU sexual harassment under T9, under the Rehab Act, the ADA, and relevant state law Case Law Updates
Stevens v. Brigham Young University-Idaho (D. Idaho 2022) The ADA and Rehab claims were dismissed right away As to the T9 claims the court found genuine disputes of material facts BYU argued there was no official notice and no deliberate indifference Court disagreed with notice argument plenty of BYU staff members were aware Court disagrees with no deliberate indifference because counselors failed to elevate Plaintiff s complaint to the appropriate channels and BYU further failed to take corrective action Case Law Updates
CREEPY BEHAVIOR Leslie, student comes to you to report that Bobby, another student, has been exhibiting creepy behavior. Leslie and Bobby work together at the coffee shop on campus and Bobby is responsible for scheduling the student employees. When you inquire about the type of behavior that has been observed Leslie tells you that Bobby has been offering to purchase items for Leslie such as food, clothes, etc. Leslie also reports that Bobby has been scheduling them to work together when Bobby knows that the two of them will be alone. Additionally, Bobby has been seen driving past Leslie s apartment on several occasions. Finally, Leslie shares that Bobby pays a lot of attention to the bodies of her female coworkers. Leslie wants the behavior to stop and does not want to continue to work with Bobby. Another female student confirmed that she has experienced similar behavior but is not interested in initiating any kind of complaint. What steps might you take in this situation?
SEX- OR GENDER-BASED HAZING You receive an anonymous report from a Potential New Member (PNM) for a sorority on campus. The information you receive states that all PNMs were required to participate in a scavenger hunt. One of the items in the scavenger hunt was to provide photographs of individuals engaged in sexual acts or in a state of undress. The anonymous report states that the scavenger hunt was required in order to be initiated into the organization. What steps might you take as Title IX Coordinator? Would this be referred to another office or would it fall under the policies within your office?
ADVISOR AS A WITNESS One of the Parties in a Title IX Investigation wants to utilize a witness as their Advisor. What would you do?
THANK YOU These materials and all discussions of these materials are for instructional purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should contact your attorney. All attendees at the March 28, 2022 virtual meeting of the Northern California Title IX Administrators Network are hereby granted permission to post a copy of these materials to their institution s website solely for purposes of compliance with 34 CFR 106.45(b)(10)(i)(D). These materials are not intended to be used by anyone for their own training purposes. Use of this material for proprietary reasons is strictly prohibited.
