Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 15

Transcription

1 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 15 FILED 2014 Oct-23 PM 12:23 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JANE DOE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CV: ) THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA ) in HUNTSVILLE, BRENT WREN, ) PhD., Sgt. JOHN BESWICK, and ) REGINA YOUNG HYATT, PhD., ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT COMES NOW the plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel and files her complaint against the above-named defendants and states unto the Court as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for injunctive relief and damages against the defendants for discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, via 42 USC 1983, and pendant state law claims. II. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, (hereinafter sometimes Doe ) is an adult resident of Madison County, Alabama, and a student at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. 3. The University of Alabama in Huntsville (hereinafter UAH ) is a public university located in Huntsville, Alabama, and is a recipient of federal educational funds. 4. Brent Wren, PhD (hereinafter Wren ), is an adult resident of the State of

2 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 15 Alabama, and is the Associate Provost and NCAA Representative for UAH. 5. John Beswick (hereinafter Beswick ), is an adult resident of the State of Alabama, and at the time of the events giving rise to this litigation, was a Sargent with the UAH Police Department. 6. Regina Young Hyatt, PhD. (hereinafter Hyatt ), is an adult resident of the State of Alabama, and at the time of the events giving rise to this litigation, was the Dean of Students at UAH, with responsibility for compliance with Title IX. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as the claims present a question of federal law, and this Court possesses supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of the plaintiff via 28 U.S.C Venue is proper in the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, as all acts complained of occurred within the geographical boundaries of Madison County, Alabama. IV. FACTUAL AVERMENTS 8. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 9. In January 2013, Doe was a minor and a full time student at UAH. 10. In the late evening of January 12, 2013, Doe was at student housing on the UAH campus, in the dorm room of an acquaintance, at which point she consumed wine. Not wishing to leave campus after consuming alcohol, she phoned a friend and asked if she could spend the night at her dorm room. 11. After receiving permission to do so, Doe gathered her belongings and walked to building 706 in South East Campus Housing, where she fell asleep in a dorm room. 12. Some time thereafter she was awakened by her friend s flat mate, who inquired if

3 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 3 of 15 she was alright and provided her with a blanket before leaving, at which point Doe fell asleep again. 13. Thereafter Doe was awakened by a man she did not know, who informed her that she could not stay in that room, and had to leave. The man, later identified as Lasse Uusivirta, repeatedly told Doe that she couldn t stay there and that it was unsafe. Disoriented, Doe left with him. 14. Uusivirta led plaintiff to another location and to a back bedroom, where he indicated she should lie down. Uusivirta subsequently got into the bed with the plaintiff and proceeded to kiss and grope her, prior to raping her. Plaintiff did not consent to any sexual contact, nor was she capable of giving such consent. 15. Plaintiff, confused, in shock, and under the influence of alcohol, asked Uusivirta several times who he was, at which point her assailant stopped, assisted her to dress and returned her to the room in which he found her. 16. After he left Doe called several people to collect her finally left and drove to her apartment off campus. 17. After a while Doe was taken to the UAH police department, where she was interviewed by Beswick. During this interview she was shown a composite photograph of the UAH hockey team and identified her assailant. 18. During Beswick s interview of the plaintiff, he informed her that people who hang out at the hockey dorms share girls all the time, and that it was completely normal and okay to have sex with someone that [the plaintiff didn t] know. 19. Beswick informed Doe that he knew that [she] believed she had been wronged, and therefore would not call her allegations unfounded, but made it clear to Doe that he did not

4 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 4 of 15 believe her. 20. Doe told him that if he did not intend to do anything about the rape, that she would prefer Uusivirta not know she had spoken to him, as she feared retribution. She was then taken to Crisis Services of North Alabama, where a rape examination was performed and a kit collected. 21. Meanwhile, officers of the UAH campus police contacted Uusivirta, who confessed that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff but that she seemed to be drunk and didn t know what was going on. He further admitted that he realized she was incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse. 22. Beswick contacted Doe after Uusivirta s confession and informed her of same, but informed her that she had no case at all in a court of law. Informing the plaintiff that You will never win in court, he advised her to pursue the matter through the UAH conduct board, as opposed to through the criminal courts. Doe agreed to pursue the matter through the UAH disciplinary system. 23. The UAH investigation was closed on January 14, 2013, with Uusivirta being identified as the perpetrator, and the matter was forwarded to the UAH Student Conduct Board for prosecution. 24. After conducting its investigation, the Board determined that Uusivirta s athletic scholarship should be revoked and that he should be immediately expelled from UAH. Doe was pleased with this decision, as it meant that she would not have to face her attacker again. She was under the impression that Uusivirta would vacate campus within a day or two of the hearing, and no one advised her that he remained on the UAH campus. 25. Uusivirta, however, appealed this decision, which called upon Wren, the

5 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 5 of 15 Associate Provost, to make a determination. 26. Uusivirta, a citizen of Finland, was at the time of these events a scholarship hockey player for UAH and was residing in the United States, upon information and belief, courtesy of a student visa. 27. After being informed that Uusivirta had been expelled, Doe was understandably shocked to see him on campus approximately two weeks later. Terrified, Doe left campus and subsequently missed several classes. 28. After inquiring, plaintiff learned that Uusivirta was appealing the Board s sentence, and that she would have to wait for Wren to make a decision before she would even know if the expulsion would be carried out. 29. During the intervening weeks Doe suffered severe anxiety and distress, and was fearful to be on campus. Her education suffered. season. follows: 30. On Saturday March 2, 2013 the UAH hockey team played its last game of the 31. On March 7, 2013, Wren tweeted about the upcoming UAH hockey schedule as In the words of Opie Taylor, aint it a beauty pa? 32. On March 21, 2013, Doe received an informing her that Wren had vacated Uusivirta s expulsion and substituted new penalties. The (with plaintiff s name and all addresses redacted) states as follows:

6 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 6 of 15 From: Antonia Morgan Date: March 21, 2013, 11:14:26 AM CDT To: Subject: Student Conduct update Dear, I have received a letter today from the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies regarding the Student Conduct Board appeal of incident 2012/ After reviewing the case file and review of sanctions for similiar [sic] cases, he has altered the sanctions to: 1. The student is immediately suspended for two academic semesters, and eligible to apply for readmission to the university beginning Fall of Because this suspension action is being decided after the eighth week of classes, the current term suspension is deferred until the end of the Spring 2013 semester. 2. Should the student be readmitted, future code of conduct violations of any type will result in immediate expulsion from the university. 3. Loss of privilege. The student is banned from all university extracurricular activities and use of university training facilities until August 15, A No Contact order will remain in place for the duration of the student's time at UAH. He is prohibited from ever having any form of contact with you, unless you explicitly approves [sic] such contact. The no contact order includes, but is not limited to comments, words or gestures in person, through postal mail, , social networking sites, or by having others (friends, acquaintances, family members, etc.) act on one's behalf. 5. Additional athletics-related penalties are to be considered by the coaching staff and/or Director of Athletics, at their discretion. The student also has the right to have a final appeal heard by the President of the university should he disagree with the imposed sanctions. -- Toni Morgan The University of Alabama in Huntsville University Center Room 114 Huntsville, AL 35899

7 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 7 of The result of Wren s decision meant that Uusivirta could remain on campus for the remainder of the then-current semester, and would be able to return to the university s athletic training facilities by August of This afforded Uusivirta ample practice time to be ready for the UAH season opener on October 11, Upon information and belief, Wren delayed making his decision for approximately a month, to ensure that the ruling came after the mid-point in the semester, so that the punishment could be deferred. Further, it cannot be a coincidence that Wren took no action on the matter until after the final hockey game of the season. 34. The day that Doe was informed of Wren s decision she met with him in his office to inquire about it. Wren refused to meet with Doe unless a woman was also present in his office. 35. Wren refused to answer any of Doe s questions, other than to inform her that UAH only expelled students for academic misconduct. 36. Having been failed utterly by the university, Doe contacted off campus law enforcement, who treated the matter with the appropriate gravity. 37. On April 1, 2013, a warrant was issued for Uusivirta s arrest for rape in the first degree, Code of Alabama, 13A (1975). He was arrested the same day and placed in the Madison County jail. 38. Uusivirta was released on Ten Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) bond which, upon information and belief, was posted by one of the UAH hockey coaching staff. 1 1 Attempts to determine which coach posted bail have as yet been unsuccessful. If the information is correct, plaintiff intends to amend her complaint to add this individual as a defendant.

8 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 8 of On April 2, 2013, UAH hockey coach Kurt Kleinendorst took to Twitter to defend Uusivirta as follows: Things are not always as they seem. Be careful to judge. 40. While Coach Kleinendorst may have advocated caution in judgment, Uusivirta avoided judgment altogether by defaulting on his bond and fleeing the United States to his native Finland prior to his required presence at a preliminary hearing. 41. The Madison County District Attorney was informed on May 1, 2013 that Uusivirta had fled the jurisdiction in an effort to avoid prosecution, and announced that the County would not pursue Uusivirta in Finland, but would continue to prosecute the case should he ever return to the United States. 42. According to press reports, Uusivirta s name remained on the UAH hockey roster until as late as April 30, As a result of the sexual assault perpetrated upon the plaintiff, and the resulting complete lack of remedial measures taken by the university, plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional distress and mental anguish. She skipped several classes, for fear of running into Uusivirta on campus, and her grades suffered. Plaintiff has been undergoing counseling which she will require, upon information and belief, for the foreseeable future. 44. Uusivirta s arrest was publicized, and although the plaintiff was not named, various online comments made about her caused her to be further afraid for her safety.

9 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 9 of 15 COUNT I VIOLATION OF TITLE IX AS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, HUNTSVILLE 20 USC 1681, et seq. 45. Plaintiff adopts and realleges each preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 46. UAH is an education institution which received federal funds, and is thus subject to the strictures of Title IX. 47. The sex-based harassment suffered by the plaintiff was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprived her of equal access to educational opportunities provided by UAH. because: 48. UAH subjected the plaintiff to a hostile environment in violation of Title IX a. Plaintiff was a member of a protected class; b. She was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of a sexual assault perpetrated upon her by Uusivirita, and subsequent online comments; c. She was subjected to harassment based upon her sex, which caused; d. Her to be subjected to a hostile educational environment created by UAH s lack of policies and procedures to properly investigate and/or address the sexual assault and subsequent harassment, and UAH s actual failure to properly investigate and/or address the sexual assault and subsequent harassment. 49. UAH, Wren, Beswick and Hyatt had actual knowledge of the sexual assault of the plaintiff, and of the subsequent environment of fear in which she was placed by virtue of the

10 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 10 of 15 defendants inaction. 50. UAH s failure to promptly and correctly respond to plaintiff s allegations, specifically the inexplicable delay in Wren s decision, proximately caused the plaintiff to be excluded from and denied participation in the educational opportunities provided by UAH to her male counterparts, in order that Uusivirta could continue to play hockey, making possible Wren s and UAH s desire to elevate UAH into another division of collegiate play. 51. Defendant UAH failed to take immediate OR effective remedial actions to investigate or resolve plaintiff s complaint of sexual assault and harassment, but instead acted with deliberate indifference towards the plaintiff, and persisted in this course of action after UAH, Wren, Beswick and Hyatt had actual knowledge of the damages suffered by plaintiff. 52. UAH engaged in a pattern and practice of behavior designed to actively discourage students who had been sexually assaulted and/or harassed from seeking prosecution and/or from having such assaults properly investigated by outside law enforcement agencies. 53. This policy and/or practice culminated in disparate treatment of women, and had a disparate impact on female students, including the plaintiff. 54. As a proximate result of the actions of UAH, plaintiff has been caused to suffer extreme emotional distress, mental anguish, to fear for her personal safety, and other damages. These damages proximately result from UAH s deliberate indifference to plaintiff s rights under Title IX. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant UAH, in such an amount as a jury may assess as just, including the costs of this action and a reasonable attorney s fee. Plaintiff requests such other, further and different relief to which

11 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 11 of 15 she may be entitled. COUNT II DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFF S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AS TO DEFENDANTS UAH, WREN, BESWICK and HYATT 42 U.S.C Plaintiff adopts and realleges each preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 56. As a student of a public university, plaintiff was entitled to personal security, bodily integrity and the Equal Protection of the Laws, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 57. Defendants UAH, Wren, Beswick and Hyatt were state actors, acting under color of state law at all times material hereto. 58. Defendants, and each of them, subjected plaintiff to violations of her right to personal security, bodily integrity and the Equal Protection of the Laws by; a. Failing to properly investigate Uusirvirta s sexual assault of the plaintiff; hockey; b. Failing to discipline Uusivirta in any way, so that he could continue to play c. UAH failed to adequately train and/or supervise Wren, Beswick and Hyatt; d. And demonstrating complete and deliberate indifference to the sexual assault of the plaintiff, and to the ongoing trauma suffered by the plaintiff caused by her rapist being on campus and by anonymous internet threats. procedures of: 59. UAH had, at all times material hereto, unconstitutional customs, policies or

12 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 12 of 15 a. Failing to investigate evidence of criminal and tortious misconduct against students in the nature of violations of their right to personal security and bodily integrity.; b. Failing to adequately train and supervise UAH employees with regard to maintaining, preserving and protecting students including the plaintiff from violations of their right to personal security, bodily integrity, and the Equal Protection of the Laws. 60. UAH s policies and/or practices resulted in disparate treatment of female students, and had a disparate impact on female students. 61. At all times material to the events making up the basis of this lawsuit, Wren, Beswick and Hyatt were policymakers of UAH for the purpose of implementing UAH s unconstitutional policies, practices or customs. 62. As a proximate result of the defendants actions and deliberate inactions, plaintiff has been caused to suffer extreme emotional distress and mental anguish, and other damages as hereinabove detailed. COUNT III MONELL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN AND SUPERVISE REGARDING REPORTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT DEFENDANT UAH 42 U.S.C Plaintiff adopts and realleges each preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 64. Defendants Wren, Beswick and Hyatt were state actors, working for UAH, a federally funded educational institution, at all times material hereto. Wren, Beswick and Hyatt had actual knowledge of plaintiff s assault by Uusivirta at all times material hereto. 65. Defendants Wren, Beswick and Hyatt acted under color of state law when they

13 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 13 of 15 each failed or refused to respond to reports of plaintiff s sexual assault by a UAH hockey player. Beswick actively attempted to dissuade plaintiff from seeking justice by telling plaintiff that she had no hope of winning her case. Wren, with Hyatt s complicity, delayed action on the discipline meted out to Uusivirta until his participation in UAH s hockey season had concluded. 66. Hyatt, UAH s Title IX Compliance Officer, deliberately disregarded plaintiff s complaint of sexual assault, and failed and/or refused to conduct any meaningful investigation into the matter. 67. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Title IX, plaintiff had the right to an equal access to public education, free from harassment and discrimination. 68. Defendants Wren, Beswick and Hyatt knew (or should have known) that their response to sexual assault allegations must comply with federal law, specifically as outlined in Title IX s published regulations. rights by: 69. Defendants Wren, Beswick and Hyatt each violated plaintiff s constitutional a. Failing to take immediate and appropriate action to investigate once informed of plaintiff s sexual assault; b. Failing to take prompt and effective steps to end the sexual violence, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects, whether or not the sexual violence is the subject of a criminal investigation; c. Failing to provide an effective grievance procedure for students to file complaints of sexual discrimination, including complaints of sexual violence.

14 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 14 of 15 d. Failing to properly notify the plaintiff of the outcome of University disciplinary processes, to wit: fraudulently informing the plaintiff that her rapist had been expelled from campus when he was, in fact, still a student, and enrolled in at least one of her classes. 70. Title IX, and its requirements of equal protection were well established at the time of the incidents made the basis of this litigation. Wren, Beswick and Hyatt, either had actual knowledge of the requirements of Title IX or, as employees of a federally funded University, should have been so aware. 71. Defendant UAH violated plaintiff s Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal Protection of the Laws by failing to properly train and/or supervise its employees about the strictures of Title IX, and by promulgating and/or ratifying a custom, policy or procedure which encouraged the violation of plaintiff s rights in order to preserve the UAH hockey team. 72. As a proximate result of the defendants actions, and each of them, plaintiff has been caused to suffer extreme emotional distress and mental anguish, as well as other damages detailed, infra. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands judgment against all defendants, in such an amount as a jury may assess as just, including the costs of this action and a reasonable attorneys fee. Plaintiff prays for such other, further and different relief to which she may be entitled.

15 Case 5:14-cv HGD Document 1 Filed 10/23/14 Page 15 of 15 <s> Mary-Ellen Bates Mary-Ellen Bates ASB-0270-B65M OF COUNSEL: BATES, HETZEL, PC The McAdory Building st Avenue North, Suite 450 Birmingham, Alabama Telephone: (205) Facsimile: (205) PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY. PLEASE SERVE DEFENDANTS VIA PERSONAL SERVICE AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: University of Alabama, Huntsville John Beswick c/o Brent Wren, Ph.D, Associate Provost University of Alabama, Huntsville 301 Sparkman Drive Police Department Huntsville, Alabama Sparkman Drive, IMF 123 Huntsville, Alabama Brent Wren, Ph.D University of Alabama, Huntsville Shelbie King Hall, Room Sparkman Drive Huntsville, Alabama Regina Young Hyatt, Ph.D University of Alabama, Huntsville Charger Union, Room Holmes Avenue Huntsville, Alabama 35899