Videckis v. Pepperdine University

Citations: 150 F. Supp. 3d 1151; 2015 WL 8769974; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167672Docket: Case No. CV 15-00298 DDP (JCx)

Court: District Court, C.D. California; December 14, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Pepperdine University’s motion to dismiss the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action of the plaintiffs' third amended complaint has been denied by the court. The plaintiffs, Haley Videckis and Layana White, former members of Pepperdine’s women’s basketball team, allege that the university and its staff engaged in intrusive and discriminatory behavior due to their romantic relationship, which was perceived as a concern by the coaching staff. 

The complaint details that Coach Ryan and others suspected the plaintiffs were in a lesbian relationship and harassed them in an effort to push them off the team. Conlogue, an athletic academic coordinator, allegedly held numerous individual meetings with the plaintiffs to probe their sexual orientation and relationship status, asking invasive questions about their personal lives. White reported Conlogue’s behavior to Coach Ryan, who promised to monitor the situation but took no action to stop the inquiries. 

Additionally, plaintiffs assert that Conlogue's questioning interfered with their educational opportunities. Coach Ryan further expressed his concerns about lesbian relationships in a team meeting, indicating such relationships could negatively impact team performance. White later sought assistance from Coach Ryan regarding an NCAA appeal for her eligibility but received no follow-up after his initial assurances. The court’s ruling allows the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed, highlighting issues of potential discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation.

On June 12, 2014, White met with Pepperdine athletic director Dr. Steve Potts, who was unaware of an appeal on White's behalf. White claims Dr. Potts offered to process the appeal but failed to provide any updates. She also alleges that a male basketball player who transferred to Pepperdine was permitted to play in 2015, despite her earlier admission. On June 4, 2014, Videckis reported to coaching staff that athletic trainer Karissa Scherer had been asking inappropriate questions regarding her dating preferences. Videckis claims Coach Ryan dismissed her complaint and accused her of lying, but later, Scherer admitted to asking inappropriate questions and apologized. A Title IX investigation revealed that Scherer manipulated time records to suggest that Videckis and White were late for training.

In early July, Conlogue falsely accused the Plaintiffs of academic cheating, a claim that lacked evidence and was subsequently dropped. Later, Coach Ryan advised two of the Plaintiffs’ teammates not to live with them, suggesting they were negative influences, which led to those teammates informing the Plaintiffs about Ryan's attempts to turn the team against them. On August 26, 2014, the coaching staff inquired about the Plaintiffs’ relationship status, which prompted White to confront Coach Ryan, confirming the staff's probing.

White raised her GPA to a 3.0, which normally reduced her study hall hours, but Coach Ryan then changed the requirement to a 3.2 GPA to force her into unwanted interactions with Conlogue. In early September, White was punished for alleged absences from study hall; after a confrontation with Conlogue, she attempted suicide. Videckis reported pain from basketball training in June 2014, yet two doctors cleared her to play. On September 9, 2014, she informed Coach Ryan she would miss practice for cervical cancer testing, but Scherer allegedly requested access to her gynecological records, which she refused, noting they were irrelevant to her basketball participation. The Plaintiffs assert that no other players were asked for similar medical documentation.

On September 16, 2014, Videckis met Dr. Green at the Pepperdine Health Center, who cleared her for her condition. However, she received an email from Scherer stating she needed documentation from a spine specialist to participate. The next day, Videckis requested documentation and provided her MRI and treatment details to the athletic training room but was informed the documentation was insufficient and required a diagnosis and treatment plan. Despite informing Coach Ryan of her compliance with the trainers' requests, he refused to assist her. On September 19, Videckis expressed her concerns about unfair treatment by the women’s basketball staff to Dr. Potts, alleging the coaching staff was attempting to prevent her and another player, White, from participating and possibly getting them expelled. Videckis reported that Dr. Potts was rude during their meeting. Coach Ryan later pressured her to make a decision about remaining on the team, leading to further dissatisfaction expressed by Videckis. On September 24, she clarified in an email to Dr. Potts that she had not quit and requested a meeting. Dr. Potts informed her of an investigation into her claims and relieved her from basketball activities pending the investigation's outcome. On November 7, 2014, the Title IX coordinator informed Videckis that there was insufficient evidence of harassment or discrimination, and Dr. Green had not received the necessary documentation to assess her fitness. On December 1, 2014, Videckis submitted a doctor's note allowing her return to basketball without restrictions, but neither she nor White were cleared to play. The plaintiffs had previously filed a First Amended Complaint alleging Title IX discrimination. Pepperdine moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Title IX did not cover sexual orientation discrimination, but the court indicated it was inclined to find such claims were covered under Title IX.

Plaintiffs have filed a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) asserting seven causes of action: (1) violation of privacy rights under the California Constitution; (2) violations of specific provisions of the California Educational Code; (3) Title IX claim for deliberate indifference; (4) Title IX claim for intentional discrimination; (5) Title IX claim for retaliation; (6) violation of the Unruh Act; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pepperdine University seeks to dismiss the third, fourth, and fifth Title IX claims for failure to state a claim and also requests dismissal of the claim for prejudgment interest.

Under the legal standard for a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must assess whether the plaintiffs' complaint includes a "short and plain statement" of the claim that warrants relief, evaluating the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and accepting well-pleaded factual allegations as true. For the complaint to survive, it must present sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief, avoiding merely conclusory statements. 

Pepperdine's arguments for dismissal focus on three points regarding the Title IX claims: (1) Title IX does not cover sexual orientation discrimination; (2) the allegations do not substantiate a claim based on gender stereotype discrimination; and (3) the Title IX claims are uncertain and not legally cognizable. Additionally, Pepperdine argues that the retaliation claim under Title IX is baseless due to a lack of actionable allegations. Title IX aims to prevent sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs and provides individuals with protections against such practices.

Courts interpreting Title IX frequently reference Title VII, as demonstrated in cases like Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Sch. The Ninth Circuit suggests that Title IX was intended to align with the substantive standards of Title VII. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex, which includes both biological sex and gender, as recognized in Schwenk v. Hartford. Discrimination based on gender stereotypes is also deemed a form of sex discrimination under Title VII, as established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and further affirmed in Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters. Inc., where a male employee faced discrimination for failing to conform to gender norms. 

The plaintiffs argue their Title IX claim encompasses sexual orientation discrimination, asserting that even if Title IX does not explicitly address this, their allegations pertain to gender stereotype discrimination. The court previously acknowledged the blurred lines between gender stereotyping and sexual orientation discrimination, ultimately concluding these distinctions are artificial. It finds that claims of sexual orientation discrimination fall under the broader categories of gender stereotype or sex discrimination, rather than as independent claims. Other courts have similarly noted the challenges in differentiating between these types of discrimination. Despite arguments from some federal courts that sexual orientation discrimination is not covered under Title IX, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that sexual orientation is irrelevant for Title VII purposes, without establishing a separate cause of action for sexual harassment based solely on sexual orientation.

Pepperdine's cited cases largely dismiss sexual orientation discrimination claims without thorough examination, as exemplified by Johnson v. Eckstrom, which asserts that federal law does not protect against such discrimination. The Court critiques this reasoning, emphasizing that the focus should be on the biases of the alleged discriminator rather than the victim's sexual orientation, which is deemed irrelevant to Title IX and Title VII claims. The Court argues that sexuality exists on a continuum, and it is inappropriate to require victims to justify their sexual orientation, paralleling other forms of discrimination where victims are not asked to prove their identities. The Court concludes that sexual orientation discrimination is inherently a form of sex or gender discrimination, as one cannot separate it from gender stereotypes without creating a false dichotomy.

Furthermore, the Court recognizes that Title IX prohibits gender stereotype discrimination, which encompasses sexual orientation discrimination. The plaintiffs allege that they faced discrimination from the Pepperdine women's basketball staff based on the staff’s beliefs and stereotypes regarding their sexual orientation as lesbians. Such stereotypes, rooted in perceptions of gender roles and relationships, can constitute actionable discrimination under Title IX. Ultimately, the Court affirms that discrimination based on perceived failure to conform to gender stereotypes qualifies as a valid claim under Title IX.

A plaintiff perceived as conforming to traditional masculine traits but facing harassment due to their sexual orientation can assert a Title VII claim for sexual harassment based on gender stereotypes. Plaintiffs allege recurrent harassment and differential treatment linked to their perceived sexual orientation, including intrusive inquiries about their sexual lives and explicit statements that lesbianism was unacceptable on the women’s basketball team. This alleged discrimination stems from the staff's negative biases against lesbians, indicating that actions based on these biases constitute gender stereotype discrimination. 

Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that they experienced sex discrimination, as they were treated differently based on their female sex compared to equally situated males. The key legal test for sex discrimination involves determining if the treatment would differ but for the victim's sex. The plaintiffs argue that if they were males dating females, they would not have faced the same treatment. This claim aligns with recent EEOC rulings asserting that discrimination based on sexual orientation falls under sex discrimination as defined by Title VII. Thus, the court finds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently stated claims for both gender stereotyping and sex discrimination, consistent with the EEOC's position that sexual orientation discrimination is inherently a form of sex discrimination.

Plaintiffs' Title IX retaliation claim is challenged by Pepperdine on the grounds that they have not presented sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. To succeed, a plaintiff must demonstrate engagement in protected activity, suffering of an adverse action, and a causal link between the two. Plaintiffs assert they engaged in protected activity by reporting harassment to coaching staff and the Title IX coordinator, which constitutes intentional sex discrimination under Title IX. They claim retaliatory actions, including being forced off the basketball team and losing scholarships, as a result of their complaints. Pepperdine's argument that Plaintiffs' failure to disclose their relationship status undermines their complaints is dismissed, as it improperly shifts focus from the harasser's bias to the victim's status.

Additionally, Pepperdine contends that the separation of Plaintiffs' Title IX claims into three causes of action creates uncertainty and renders them legally non-cognizable. However, this argument is deemed invalid under the liberal pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which allows for alternative or hypothetical statements of claims in either single or multiple counts.

Lastly, Pepperdine seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' request for prejudgment interest, claiming it is improperly included in the "Relief Requested" section rather than as a separate claim. The document notes that a motion to dismiss is not the appropriate method to challenge this request; a motion to strike would be more suitable.

The Court has classified Pepperdine’s motion as one to strike the request for prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs argue that their claims are not yet stable and request a deferral on the prejudgment interest ruling. They have not addressed Pepperdine’s substantive arguments regarding this issue. Under California Civil Code Sections 3287 and 3288, Pepperdine asserts that Plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest for claims related to intangible mental and emotional damages. However, Plaintiffs have alleged tangible damages resulting from being removed from the women’s basketball team and losing scholarships, which may qualify for prejudgment interest under Section 3288. Consequently, Pepperdine's motion to strike the request for prejudgment interest is denied. The Court also denies Pepperdine’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and fifth causes of action.