Bello v. Howard University
898 F. Supp. 2d 213
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are five Howard University work‑study students alleging Bright‑Abu’s sexual and physical misconduct in Founders Library during 2010–2011.
- Plaintiffs filed suit Jan 28, 2008, asserting seven counts against Howard University and Bright‑Abu, including federal and state claims.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)&(6), arguing lack of viable federal claims and lack of jurisdiction over remaining state claims.
- Court dismisses Count V (federal sexual-harassment claims) on exhaustion/Title VII, Title IX, and §1981 theories and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- Court notes no complete diversity exists and that declaratory relief does not establish federal jurisdiction, granting dismissal with prejudice as to federal claims and dismissing state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII and §1981 claims are properly pleaded/exhausted | Woodson/Oni‑Orisan/Rashid/Singleton allege discrimination | Exhaustion required; §1981 not applicable to sex discrimination | Title VII claims dismissed for failure to exhaust; §1981 claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Title IX claim is adequately pleaded under Gebser framework | Defendant had notice and deliberate indifference | No adequate notice or deliberate indifference by appropriate official | Title IX claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead adequate notice/deliberate indifference |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Claims are related and should be adjudicated in federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1367 | Pendent jurisdiction is discretionary and should be declined | Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists (diversity/Declaratory Judgment Act) | Original jurisdiction via federal questions; jurisdiction via diversity | No complete diversity; DJA relief not independent jurisdiction | No complete diversity; declaratory judgment claim insufficient to confer jurisdiction; federal claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility requiring more than conclusory statements)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1998) (damages under Title IX require notice and deliberate indifference by an appropriate official)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (Title IX damages liability tied to official action and deliberate indifference)
- Blue v. Dist. of Col., 850 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2012) ( Title IX notice/appropriate person standard applied in DC district court)
- Kowal v. MCI Comm’cns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (court may reject inferences not supported by complaint)