LEGAL ASSAULT ON CAMPUS
Suit targets schools in sex incidents
A case quietly percolating in Boston’s federal appeals court could open colleges and universities up to a wide variety of discrimination lawsuits should they fail to protect women who are sexually assaulted on their campuses.
The suit was filed by a woman who, while a student at Providence College, was allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted by three Brown University football players in the fall of 2013. The assault happened on Brown’s campus, and on Feb. 3, 2014, she reported it to the city of Providence and Brown University police, according to court documents.
Seven months later, Brown told Jane Doe it would investigate the allegations, the suit states. But on June 21, 2016, Brown finally told her that “it never completed any investigation related to her sexual assault, and that it had abandoned all disciplinary action against the three assailants,” court documents show.
She sued the school under Title IX, a federal law that prevents gender-based discrimination by institutions receiving federal money. Her attorneys argued that Brown was required to remedy the effect of the attack, “conduct an adequate, reliable and impartial investigation; and to afford Ms. Doe a prompt and equitable grievance process and resolution.”
On Sept. 6, 2017, Rhode Island District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr. threw out Jane Doe’s case.
The reason: She wasn’t a Brown University student, which, under the law, apparently made her a “nonstudent.” And, according to McConnell and Brown’s attorneys, nonstudents can’t bring Title IX claims against a school.
“This is a case containing very serious allegations of student conduct on a college campus in Rhode Island,” McConnell wrote. “Nevertheless, laws put into place to protect students from sexual discrimination in educational programs were not meant to address all instances of sexual assault occurring in the college environment.”
Doe appealed, and on Tuesday a series of organizations — Equal Means Equal, the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes, Allies Reaching for Equality, and Faculty Against Rape — filed a brief supporting her cause.
“The lower court’s holding threatens the public interest because every member of the public who sets foot on the property of an institution covered by Title IX will be exposed to a greater risk of harm, despite being protected ‘persons,’ according to the plain language of Title IX,” wrote Jenna M. Labourr, a Washington state attorney who filed the brief.
Her argument — and that of Doe’s attorneys — is that Title IX’s protections are not limited to students and certainly not students of a particular institution.
“Title IX is meant to prohibit all kinds of discrimination on campus, not just discrimination committed against certain students,” said Wendy Murphy, one of Doe’s attorneys. “There is certainly nothing that says discrimination on campus is fine so long as the victim is from a different school.”
Brown’s attorneys are expected to respond to Doe’s claims in the coming weeks. Neither the school nor its lawyers responded to multiple requests for comment.
Doe’s case is considered to be the first of its kind, according to Murphy and McConnell. If she wins, Title IX will be expanded, and students and nonstudents alike will be able to hold colleges accountable when they fail to fulfill their obligations under the law.