Jennings v. University of North Carolina Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 482 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2007) Key Search Terms: sexual harassment, Title IX, coach, women’s college soccer, University of North Carolina (UNC), hostile environment Facts Melissa Jennings, a former student and soccer player at the UNC, claimed that her coach, Anson Dorrance, persistently and openly pried into and discussed the sex lives of his players and made sexually charged comments, thereby creating a hostile environment in the women’s soccer program. Jennings also sued UNC and Susan Ehringhaus, Assistant to the Chancellor and legal counsel to UNC. The Fourth Circuit affirmed UNC’s summary judgment; however, the Fourth Circuit did rehear the case en banc. Issue Whether Jennings’ action under Title IX and § 1983 against UNC and various coaches and school officials, alleging hostile environment sexual harassment could survive UNC’s summary judgment. Holding The Fourth Circuit applied a four factor test to establish a Title IX claim on the basis of sexual harassment finding that Jennings met all of the prongs. First, plaintiff must prove that she was a student at a federally funded educational institution. This was easily met because UNC is a federally funded university. Second, plaintiff must prove that she was subjected to harassment based on her sex. The court held that Dorrance’s persistent, sex-oriented discussions, both in team settings and in private, were degrading and humiliating to his players because they were women. Third, plaintiff must prove that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive environment in an educational program or activity. The court found that Dorrance’s persistent sexual harassment was sufficiently degrading to young women to create a hostile and abusive environment. This was especially true because he was and still is the most successful women’s college soccer coach in U.S. history with considerable power in the women’s soccer world. Finally, plaintiff must show that there is a basis for imputing liability to the institution. In this case, Jennings met with the Assistant to the Chancellor giving her vivid details of Dorrance’s sexual comments who then instructed Jennings to work out her problems directly with the coach. Thus, Jennings demonstrated that UNC had actual notice of the hostile environment and failed to take any action. UNC’s deliberate indifference created liability under Title IX. The court vacated the granting the UNC’s motion for summary judgment and remanded. Summarized by: Lucy Wess

Jennings v. University of North Carolina

Download PDF Report

Upload
reid-murtaugh
View
612
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Jennings v. University of North Carolina

Jennings v. University of North CarolinaFourth Circuit Court of Appeals

482 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2007)

Key Search Terms: sexual harassment, Title IX, coach, women’s college soccer, University of North Carolina (UNC), hostile environment

FactsMelissa Jennings, a former student and soccer player at the UNC, claimed that her coach, Anson Dorrance, persistently and openly pried into and discussed the sex lives of his players and made sexually charged comments, thereby creating a hostile environment in the women’s soccer program. Jennings also sued UNC and Susan Ehringhaus, Assistant to the Chancellor and legal counsel to UNC. The Fourth Circuit affirmed UNC’s summary judgment; however, the Fourth Circuit did rehear the case en banc.

Issue

Whether Jennings’ action under Title IX and § 1983 against UNC and various coaches and school officials, alleging hostile environment sexual harassment could survive UNC’s summary judgment.

HoldingThe Fourth Circuit applied a four factor test to establish a Title IX claim on the basis of sexual harassment finding that Jennings met all of the prongs. First, plaintiff must prove that she was a student at a federally funded educational institution. This was easily met because UNC is a federally funded university. Second, plaintiff must prove that she was subjected to harassment based on her sex. The court held that Dorrance’s persistent, sex-oriented discussions, both in team settings and in private, were degrading and humiliating to his players because they were women. Third, plaintiff must prove that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive environment in an educational program or activity. The court found that Dorrance’s persistent sexual harassment was sufficiently degrading to young women to create a hostile and abusive environment. This was especially true because he was and still is the most successful women’s college soccer coach in U.S. history with considerable power in the women’s soccer world. Finally, plaintiff must show that there is a basis for imputing liability to the institution. In this case, Jennings met with the Assistant to the Chancellor giving her vivid details of Dorrance’s sexual comments who then instructed Jennings to work out her problems directly with the coach. Thus, Jennings demonstrated that UNC had actual notice of the hostile environment and failed to take any action. UNC’s deliberate indifference created liability under Title IX. The court vacated the granting the UNC’s motion for summary judgment and remanded.

Summarized by: Lucy Wess