343 F. Supp. 3d 292
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Tubbs, a Stony Brook University (SBU) student, alleged she was sexually assaulted by student Daniel Verdejo in January 2014 and brought Title IX claims against SBU and SUNY plus state law claims against Verdejo.
- Tubbs reported the incident to campus police, underwent a SANE exam, initially requested anonymity and delayed choosing to pursue formal action, then filed a statement and later opted for a disciplinary hearing in April 2014.
- University Community Standards (UCS) investigated: interviewed witnesses, obtained video evidence, issued a no-contact directive and interim suspension (later modified) for Verdejo, and convened a hearing in May 2014 where the hearing board found Verdejo not responsible.
- Plaintiff appealed; an appeals officer found a procedural error, the hearing board reconvened twice and reaffirmed its original decision; final disposition issued March 2015.
- Plaintiff alleged SBU was deliberately indifferent under Title IX both for its post-assault handling (investigation/hearing procedures, timing, evidentiary access) and for pre-assault systemic deficiencies identified in a SUNY OCR Voluntary Resolution Agreement; federal claims survived to summary judgment on deliberate indifference issue only.
- District court granted summary judgment to University Defendants on Title IX claims (finding no deliberate indifference), declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and dismissed those without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether university was deliberately indifferent in post-assault response | Tubbs: investigation/hearing were not prompt/equitable; procedures biased and deprived her of protections (e.g., limited access to evidence, therapist excluded, delays) | Univ: responded promptly, investigated, provided notice/resources, conducted fair hearing; procedures were within discretion and DCL is guidance not a basis for liability | Court: No deliberate indifference; response was not "clearly unreasonable" and met Title IX obligations; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether delay in investigation/disposition amounted to deliberate indifference | Tubbs: overall timeline (final disposition >14 months) was unreasonably long | Univ: delays were reasonable given Tubbs’s initial requests for anonymity and ambivalence; investigation and hearing steps were timely once she elected to proceed | Court: Delay not "lengthy and unjustified" as required; plaintiff’s ambivalence contributed; no Title IX liability |
| Whether procedural features of UCS grievance/hearing process violated Title IX | Tubbs: structural rules and limited evidentiary access stacked the deck, deprived due process to complainant | Univ: policy variations are permitted; DCL provides flexible guidance; both parties had opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine; training provided | Court: Procedural imperfections or deviation from DCL/best practices do not alone establish deliberate indifference; no reasonable juror could find process clearly unreasonable |
| Whether systemic, pre-assault SUNY deficiencies (Voluntary Resolution Agreement) or knowledge of risk by Univ caused or proximately led to assault | Tubbs: system-wide OCR findings and coordinator turnover show actual notice of deficient policies and created an environment enabling assault | Univ: Voluntary Agreement addressed system-wide concerns but did not put SBU on notice of a particular deficient program or that Verdejo posed a risk; no specific prior incidents involving Verdejo | Court: Plaintiff failed to show actual knowledge of a specific risk or policy defect at SBU or proximate causation; pre-assault claim fails as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (student-on-student Title IX deliberate indifference standard: harassment must be severe, pervasive, objectively offensive and school response must be clearly unreasonable)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (requires actual knowledge and an official with authority to institute corrective measures for Title IX monetary liability)
- Hayut v. State Univ. of New York, 352 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2003) (delay indicates deliberate indifference only when "lengthy and unjustified")
- Oden v. N. Marianas Coll., 440 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2006) (college not deliberately indifferent where it acted once aware despite timing deviations from policy)
- Simpson v. Univ. of Colo. Boulder, 500 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007) (university policy or program maintained with actual knowledge of substantial risk can support Title IX liability)