Frantz Bernard v. East Stroudsburg University
700 F. App'x 159
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Former ESU students sued Vice‑President Isaac Sanders for sexual assault/harassment and sued university officials (Dillman, Borland, Victoria Sanders) for failing to protect them under Title IX, § 1983, and §§ 1985–86 conspiracy claims. Plaintiffs’ allegations related to conduct before August 2007; litigation began 2009.
- After an initial internal investigation by Arthur Breese (limited, found disputes of credibility) Dillman concluded there was insufficient evidence; later, after more complaints, PASSHE suspended Sanders and commissioned a broader outside investigation (PASSHE Report) that led to termination.
- District Court granted summary judgment for the university officials (Title IX and § 1983 claims) but allowed § 1983 claims against Sanders to proceed to trial; a jury ultimately returned verdicts for Sanders. Plaintiffs appealed several interlocutory and evidentiary rulings.
- Plaintiffs alleged Breese’s report was incomplete/hampered, that rumors and a state official’s criticism of ESU policy put administrators on notice, and that comparison to the later PASSHE Report showed deliberate indifference or cover‑up.
- Procedural disputes: only 24 of 31 pages of an interim PASSHE Report were in the summary‑judgment record; plaintiffs sought reconsideration and later attempted to admit the PASSHE Report at trial. District Court excluded portions of evidence about other alleged prior assaults.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for university officials on Title IX and § 1983 was improper | Breese report was incomplete/hampered, rumors and a state official’s warning gave actual notice, PASSHE Report shows a coverup -> officials were deliberately indifferent/acquiesced | University officials lacked actual notice of sexual‑assault allegations and did not act with deliberate indifference or acquiescence; post‑report investigations and other responses show responsiveness | Affirmed: plaintiffs failed to show actual notice and deliberate indifference or supervisory acquiescence sufficient for liability |
| Whether District Court erred by not sua sponte revising summary judgment when full PASSHE Report pages were missing | Missing seven pages of PASSHE Report were new, material evidence warranting reconsideration under Rule 59 | Plaintiffs failed to timely file full report; court had reviewed 24 pages; remaining pages immaterial; no manifest injustice | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in declining sua sponte reconsideration; Rule 60 denial stands and plaintiffs didn’t show material new evidence |
| Whether District Court erred in excluding the PASSHE Report at trial under hearsay/public‑record exceptions and Rule 403 | PASSHE interim report is trustworthy and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public‑agency report exception) | Report was interim, contained hearsay‑within‑hearsay, and admission would usurp jury/pose prejudice; exclusion proper under 803(8) and Rule 403 | Affirmed: District Court did not abuse discretion—report untrustworthy (interim and hearsay) and prejudicial; exclusion sustained |
| Whether exclusion of testimony about other alleged prior sexual misconduct (Murray, Brown, Haskins) was error under Rules 413/403 | Prior‑acts testimony was admissible to show propensity and pattern under Rule 413; evidence was sufficiently specific | Testimony was equivocal for some witnesses ("near" or "towards" genitals), raising low probative value and high prejudice; Rule 403 exclusion appropriate | Affirmed: district court properly applied Johnson v. Elk Lake framework and Rule 403 balancing; partial admission for Haskins only, others largely excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX requires actual notice and deliberate indifference by an official with authority to remedy)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (deliberate indifference standard: clearly unreasonable response to known circumstances)
- Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2012) (supervisory § 1983 liability cannot be vicarious; participation, direction, or acquiescence required)
- Johnson v. Elk Lake Sch. Dist., 283 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2002) (framework for admitting prior sexual‑assault acts under Rules 413/415 and Rule 403)
- Coleman v. Home Depot, Inc., 306 F.3d 1333 (3d Cir. 2002) (factors bearing on trustworthiness for public‑record hearsay exception)