Williams v. Coppin State University, 1:23-cv-02590

Plaintiff Ibn Williams was a student-athlete on the Coppin State University basketball team, recruited by head coach Juan Dixon.
Williams alleges he was catfished, blackmailed, and sexually harassed by assistant coach Lucian Brownlee (previously a fellow player), with threats to expose compromising material unless he complied with sexual demands.
Williams claims university officials, including Dixon and athletic director Derek Carter, knew Brownlee was a predator and failed to act, then retaliated against Williams after he reported the incidents.
After reporting, Williams experienced further distress during the university's investigation, including invasive questioning and loss of housing/tuition aid, allegedly for retaliatory reasons.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, asserting sovereign immunity and failure to state cognizable claims on various counts.
The court considered whether the claims could proceed against individual and institutional defendants under Maryland law (including the Maryland Tort Claims Act) and federal law (notably Title IX).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sovereign Immunity for Torts	State actors (incl. Carter, Dixon) not immune for gross negligence/malice	State and officials immune under MTCA unless gross negligence is specifically pled	Carter/Dixon not immune for gross negligence, but Coppin State/USM/State are immune
Negligent Hiring/Retention	Defendants had notice of Brownlee’s dangers yet hired/retained him negligently	Carter, Dixon immune for negligence; no specific knowledge alleged	Motion granted as to Carter/Dixon, denied as to Coppin State/USM/State re: Brownlee only
Breach of Contract	Written scholarship contract with university signed by AD Carter	No written contract alleged, or time-barred	Suit may proceed; sufficient facts alleged in complaint
Title IX Sexual Harassment/Retaliation	University failed to act despite notice, then retaliated by withholding aid	Insufficient allegations to impute liability; no individual capacity liability	Claims may proceed against institutional defendants; dismissed against Carter/Dixon
IIED	Defendants’ conduct was intentional, extreme, and caused genuine distress	Allegations conclusory or only against Brownlee	IIED claim survives only as to Brownlee; insufficient facts as to Carter/Dixon

Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157 (Md. 2007) (distinguishing when state personnel may lose immunity for malice/gross negligence)
Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2007) (deliberate indifference standard for imputing Title IX liability to institution)
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (2009) (no individual liability under Title IX)
Stern v. Bd. of Regents, Univ. Sys. of Md., 380 Md. 691 (Md. 2004) (sovereign immunity and the requirement for written contracts for waiver)