Matthews v. Nwankwo, 36 F. Supp. 3d 718

Background

Matthews, a student at Mississippi Valley State University (MVSU), alleges Professor Peter Nwankwo grabbed her buttocks and attempted to kiss her in early 2010 and that she complained to MVSU on February 22, 2010.
MVSU’s HR investigated (interviewed students, Matthews, and Nwankwo); two other students reported inappropriate comments during the inquiry.
HR concluded it could not find severe and pervasive harassment but believed Nwankwo may have put himself in a compromising position; he was instructed on policies and permitted to continue teaching.
Matthews was prohibited contact with Nwankwo during the investigation, removed from his spring class about three weeks before semester end, placed in independent-study arrangements, but was reassigned to Nwankwo’s summer classes over her objections.
Nwankwo was released from his contract in August 2010 (record silent as to reason). Matthews sued MVSU and Nwankwo under Title IX; MVSU moved for summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conduct amounted to actionable Title IX sexual harassment	Matthews: single severe incident (touching and attempted kiss) created hostile educational environment and deprived her of educational opportunities	MVSU: argues severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive standard not met and conducts not actionable	Court: denied summary judgment — material fact exists whether single severe incident meets severe/pervasive Title IX standard under totality-of-circumstances test
Applicable legal standard for teacher-on-student harassment	Matthews: teacher-on-student claims can be actionable without the same student-on-student severe/pervasive threshold (points to position power)	MVSU: relies on cases requiring severe/pervasive standard	Court: applies Fifth Circuit guidance and Title VII framework — harassment actionable if so severe or pervasive it creates hostile, harmful school atmosphere; evaluates under totality (frequency, severity, threat/humiliation, interference)
Whether MVSU had actual knowledge and authority to act	Matthews: officials had notice after her complaint to assistant VP and HR investigation implicated other students	MVSU: acknowledges notice but contests sufficiency and reasonableness of response	Court: actual notice shown for summary-judgment purposes (institution officials aware) — question turns to reasonableness of response
Whether MVSU’s response amounted to deliberate indifference	Matthews: delayed removal (~2–3 months) and reassigning her back to Nwankwo suggest unreasonable response	MVSU: conducted investigation, interviewed parties, instructed Nwankwo, reassigned Matthews during term — actions were reasonable	Court: genuine issue of material fact exists — although investigation and some discipline weigh against liability, the delay in removing Matthews and reassigning her to Nwankwo create triable issue of deliberate indifference; summary judgment denied

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Title IX damages require official with authority to act to have actual knowledge and show deliberate indifference)
Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 220 F.3d 380 (teacher-on-student Title IX framework; deliberate indifference standard)
Rowinsky v. Bryan Indep. Sch. Dist., 80 F.3d 1006 (interpreting Franklin and applying Title VII-analogous analysis in Title IX context)
E.E.O.C. v. WC & M Enters., Inc., 496 F.3d 393 (Title VII totality-of-circumstances factors for severe/pervasive standard)
Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686 (applying Title VII factors to student-teacher harassment)
Harvill v. Westward Communications, L.L.C., 433 F.3d 428 (unwanted touching can be severe sexual harassment)
Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062 (physical grabbing is physically threatening and humiliating)
Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
Norwegian Bulk Transp. A/S v. Int'l Marine Terminals P'ship, 520 F.3d 409 (summary judgment standard)