918 F. Supp. 2d 471
D.S.C.2013Background
- DeCecco sues USC, its coaches Shelley and Jamie Smith, and administrators Hyman and Girton for sexual harassment and related claims arising from events within USC's Women’s Soccer program.
- Key incidents include a Locker Room Incident (October 2008) where Jamie Smith allegedly touched DeCecco and Shelley's presence afterward; a Boxer Shorts incident observed by the team; and various pre-arrival and ongoing complaints from former players about coaching conduct.
- DeCecco alleges notice to USC officials of harassment and a failure to respond, seeking damages under Title IX, § 1983, and common-law negligence theories against the university and individuals.
- USC moves for summary judgment on Title IX, § 1983, and negligence claims, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity and, for some claims, SCTCA immunity; Smiths move for summary judgment on all Smith-related claims.
- The court grants USC's motion in full on Title IX (no pre-2010 notice, no deliberate indifference, insufficient severity), dismisses § 1983 against USC, and dismisses negligence claims against USC; Smiths’ motion is granted as to all claims after analysis of § 1983, outrage, and negligence, leaving no surviving claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USC is liable under Title IX for sexual harassment | DeCecco contends USC had actual notice and Deliberate Indifference. | USC argues no notice before July 29, 2010; no severe or pervasive harassment; no protected activity. | Title IX claim dismissed for lack of notice and failure to show deliberate indifference or severe harassment. |
| Whether § 1983 claims against USC/Smiths are cognizable, given Eleventh Amendment immunity | DeCecco asserts § 1983 claims against USC and Smiths are viable as federal rights claims. | USC not a 'person' for § 1983; Eleventh Amendment immunity bars claims against state actors; Smiths’ official capacity claims barred by immunity. | § 1983 claims against USC are barred; Smiths' official-capacity claims barred; individualized capacity claims analyzed but dismissed on merits. |
| Whether DeCecco may state a negligent or gross negligent claim under SCTCA against USC, Hyman, and Girton | SCTCA waives immunity for certain duties and allows recovery for supervision failures and wrongful conduct. | Eleventh Amendment immunity and SCTCA immunities bar the negligence claims. | All negligence claims against USC barred by Eleventh Amendment; most negligence claims against Hyman and Girton barred by SCTCA; gross negligence potentially barred but overall disposition yields dismissal. |
| Whether the Smiths state a plausible § 1983 or tort claim | Smiths' conduct constitutes sexual harassment and violates § 1983, plus tort claims for outrage and fraud (in part). | Actions were not sufficiently severe or pervasive or not properly proven to be due to gender; immunity defenses apply; some claims fail under pleading standards. | Smith Defendants granted summary judgment on § 1983, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent theories, and fraud; no viable claims survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Ind. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1998) (notice and deliberate indifference standard for Title IX damages claims)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (school district liable only for deliberate indifference with actual knowledge)
- Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2001) (actual notice vs. constructive notice under Title IX standards; proxy liability limits)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (state immunity; not a 'person' under § 1983)
- Jennings v. Univ. of North Carolina, 482 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2007) (hostile environment analysis; pattern of conduct and context matters)
- Okoli v. City of Baltimore, 648 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2011) (Title VII/Title IX related harassment and hostility considerations)