Feminist Majority Found. v. Univ. of Mary Wash.
283 F. Supp. 3d 495
E.D. Va.2017Background
- Five students on the executive board of Feminists United (a student feminist org.) at the public University of Mary Washington (UMW) were anonymously harassed on the location-based app Yik Yak during the 2014–2015 school year, including insults, threats, and doxxing-style location posts that caused fear and safety concerns.
- Feminists United reported the harassment to UMW administration multiple times and requested measures including disabling or blocking Yik Yak on campus; UMW declined to ban the app citing First Amendment concerns.
- UMW held "sharing circles," and campus police attended meetings when specific threats caused a student to fear attending; UMW also disciplined a rugby team for an unrelated offensive chant.
- Feminists United and the Feminist Majority Foundation filed an OCR Title IX complaint in May 2015; UMW president Hurley publicly responded in a June 8 letter denying some allegations and explaining UMW's actions.
- Plaintiffs sued UMW and university presidents for Title IX sex discrimination and retaliation and for Equal Protection violations under § 1983; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed all claims: Title IX discrimination (no substantial control over anonymous Yik Yak postings / no deliberate indifference), Title IX retaliation (no adverse action by UMW), and Equal Protection claims (no disparate treatment or clearly established violation; qualified and Eleventh Amendment immunity defenses applicable).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX — discrimination: whether UMW was deliberately indifferent to sex-based harassment that denied access to education | Harassment on Yik Yak created a sexually hostile environment; UMW failed to adequately address it, showing deliberate indifference | UMW lacked substantial control over anonymous third-party Yik Yak posts; it took reasonable measures and could not be required to adopt plaintiffs' requested remedies (e.g., ban the app) | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to show UMW had control or acted with deliberate indifference |
| Title IX — retaliation: whether UMW retaliated after plaintiffs filed OCR complaint | Hurley’s public June 8 response and subsequent online attacks constituted retaliation for complaining | Hurley merely responded to the OCR complaint; UMW took no adverse action against plaintiffs | Dismissed — no actionable retaliatory/adverse action by UMW |
| Equal Protection — disparate treatment / hostile environment under § 1983 | Alleged sex-based harassment by state actors created an equal protection violation akin to hostile environment | Plaintiffs did not plead differential treatment or discriminatory animus; other campus groups also harassed; alternative standard inapplicable | Dismissed — insufficient pleading of disparate treatment or animus; Title IX reasoning would also fail if applied |
| Immunity defenses to § 1983 claims | Plaintiffs sought relief against university presidents | Defendants raised qualified immunity (individual capacity) and Eleventh Amendment (official capacity) | Dismissed — qualified immunity shields individual; Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity suit (no ongoing violation / prospective relief) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (recognition of implied private right of action under Title IX)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX requires deliberate indifference and substantial control over harasser/context)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (retaliation as a form of discrimination under Title IX)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (limited exception to Eleventh Amendment for prospective relief against state officers)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard—courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Beardsley v. Webb, 30 F.3d 524 (4th Cir.) (discussing § 1983 hostile-work-environment analogues for sex-based harassment)