674 F. App'x 239
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Ebony Moore, a Temple University track athlete, alleged coaches and teammates sexually harassed and bullied her; her great-uncle forwarded her April 25, 2011 complaint to Temple.
- Temple held a May 4, 2011 meeting; Moore emailed Coach Mobley shortly after saying she would miss the Atlantic 10 Championship due to finals.
- Coach Mobley recommended non-renewal of Moore’s athletic scholarship and removal from the team; Moore received formal notice of non-renewal on May 20, 2011 and was removed in May 2011.
- Moore filed a grievance with Temple’s Athletic Appeals Panel (focused on scholarship), which upheld non-renewal but awarded her a different scholarship; the Appeals Panel decision issued July 28, 2011.
- Moore sued (July 29, 2013) under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging harassment, retaliation, removal from team, and scholarship non-renewal; the District Court granted summary judgment for defendants as time-barred and on the merits for the Appeals Panel retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Moore's Title IX and §1983 claims timely? | Moore argues her claims accrued later or were tolled, making filing timely. | Defendants argue statute of limitations (2 years) began when Moore knew of injuries in May 2011, so suit filed July 29, 2013 is late. | Claims accrued in May 2011; claims accruing before July 29, 2011 are time-barred. |
| When did claim for scholarship non-renewal accrue? | Moore contends grievance delayed accrual or provided a continuing process. | Defendants: accrual on formal notice (May 20, 2011); grievance is post-decision remedy and does not toll. | Accrual date is May 20, 2011; non-renewal claim is untimely. |
| When did claim for removal from team accrue? | Moore contends removal occurred after grievance decision. | Defendants: evidence shows removal occurred in May 2011; grievance did not address removal. | Removal occurred in May 2011; related claims are time-barred. |
| Is the Appeals Panel retaliation claim actionable? | Moore asserts the Panel retaliated by upholding decision after her complaint. | Defendants: no evidence of retaliatory motive; temporal proximity insufficient. | Retaliation claim not time-barred but fails on the merits for lack of causation/evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 775 F.3d 598 (3d Cir. 2015) (two-year limitations for Title IX/§1983 claims in this circuit)
- Bougher v. Univ. of Pitt., 882 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1989) (statute of limitations for §1983 claims in §1983 context)
- Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009) (accrual rule: claims accrue when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
- Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980) (grievance procedures remedial for prior decisions and do not toll accrual)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to establish causation for retaliation)