208 F. Supp. 3d 745
W.D. Va.2016Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Butters, a JMU student, alleges she was sexually assaulted by three fraternity members during Spring Break 2013 and that a cellphone video of the incident circulated among students. She does not recall the assault and did not file criminal charges.
- Butters learned of the video after returning to campus and sought help; Sigma Chi imposed a no-contact sanction and JMU employees (including a sorority advisor and OJA personnel) were notified in late March–April 2013.
- JMU reviewed the video in April 2013 but concluded the footage alone was ambiguous as to consent and intoxication; OJA told Butters it needed her participation to proceed. She delayed filing a formal complaint until January 2014.
- Once Butters filed, JMU conducted hearings, found the three students responsible by a preponderance, and imposed sanctions that were later modified on appeal (expulsion upon graduation, no contact, limited campus presence). Butters was dissatisfied with the remedies.
- Butters sued JMU under Title IX alleging the university’s response was deliberately indifferent and created or failed to remedy a hostile educational environment. JMU moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive to create a hostile educational environment | Butters: the assault plus video circulation and subsequent encounters with assailants made campus hostile | JMU: the video was ambiguous and encounters were off-campus; plaintiff did not show a hostile environment | Court: No genuine dispute that meets the severe/pervasive hostile-environment standard; summary judgment for JMU |
| Whether JMU was deliberately indifferent after learning of the incident (pre-complaint period) | Butters: JMU could/should have investigated without her participation, stopped video circulation, and imposed protections sooner | JMU: staff promptly advised, referred to counseling, reviewed video, sought consent before proceeding, and respected plaintiff’s confidentiality requests | Court: JMU’s response was not clearly unreasonable; no deliberate indifference during pre-complaint period |
| Whether JMU’s response after formal complaint was inadequate (investigation/adjudication) | Butters: process required repeated testimony and imposed insufficient remedies; appealed sanctions were inadequate | JMU: initiated full disciplinary process, issued no-contact order, found respondents responsible and imposed sanctions | Court: Post-complaint process and sanctions were not clearly unreasonable; no deliberate indifference |
| Whether plaintiff showed causation/control (that JMU’s response caused further harassment or made her more vulnerable in a context JMU controlled) | Butters: continued encounters and fraternity events made her vulnerable and JMU failed to control contagious circulation and off-campus activities | JMU: encounters were off-campus; school lacked control over off-campus fraternity property and events; no evidence of ongoing video circulation after notice | Court: Plaintiff failed to show JMU’s response caused further harassment or that JMU had control sufficient to be liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (explains Title IX requires actual notice and deliberate indifference for damages)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (applies deliberate-indifference standard to student-on-student harassment and limits liability to contexts the school controls)
- Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. en banc) (deliberate indifference can be a jury issue when school response is clearly unreasonable)
- Ostrander v. Duggan, 341 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2003) (no deliberate indifference where school took limited steps post-assault)
- Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (no deliberate indifference where plaintiff declined to pursue formal report and sought confidentiality)
- S.B. v. Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cnty., 819 F.3d 69 (4th Cir. 2016) (a school’s actions are not clearly unreasonable merely because a victim advocates for stronger remedies)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard on disputed facts)