The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Title IX Sexual Assault Cases and Extraterritoriality
From today's decision by Judge Paul Maloney (W.D. Mich.) in Doe v. Calvin Univ.:
In 2020, Plaintiff Jane Doe attended Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Calvin University offered a study abroad program in the Philippines with Silliman University, a private university in Dumaguete, Philippines. Silliman University selected some of its students to serve as "buddies" for the Calvin University students. Near the end of the program, the students attended a dinner on the Silliman campus. After the dinner, the Silliman students invited the Calvin students to a local bar and club. One of the Silliman students laced or spiked Plaintiff's drink and later escorted her back to the hotel where he sexually assaulted Plaintiff.
Plaintiff sued under, among other things, Title IX, and Calvin defended by arguing "that Title IX does not apply outside of the United States." No, said the court: "Plaintiff pleads deliberate indifference in the administration of the program, a claim based on Calvin University's conduct in the United States."
For her Title IX claim, Plaintiff pleads that Calvin University was responsible for establishing and implementing polices and procedures concerning the security and safety of students, including adequate supervision, staff training and education of the program participants relevant to the risks of sexual assault and harassment. Plaintiff pleads that Calvin University's conduct amounted to deliberate indifference by, among other things, (1) maintaining outdated and inadequate sexual assault and harassment policies, (2) failing to provide adequate training and guidance for staff concerning the study-abroad programs, (3) failing to provide adequate orientation for students in the study-abroad programs which were necessary for protection against sexual assault and harassment, and (4) failing to require the implementation of safety protocols during the study-abroad program….
Title IX provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, …." … Our Supreme Court has held that an entity receiving federal funds may violate Title IX through an administrative enforcement scheme that amounts to deliberate indifference. Circuit courts, including the Sixth Circuit, have recognized as viable a Title IX "before" claim, based on the deliberate indifference that occurred before a student-on-student incident….
Neither the Supreme Court nor any circuit court has determined whether Title IX applies to incidents that occur outside the United States. Interpreting a different statute, the Supreme Court noted a "longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd. (2010). The majority of district courts have found that Title IX does not apply to incidents outside of the United States. The only district court to reach the opposite conclusion issued its opinion before Morrison…. The Court concludes that Title IX does not rebut the presumption against extraterritorial application….
The conclusion that Title IX does not apply to events that occur outside of the United States does not provide Defendant any relief. Plaintiff pleads a before or pre-assault claim based on a policy of deliberate indifference. (Defendant's conduct or lack of conduct giving rise to Plaintiff's Title IX claim occurred in the United States….
Congratulations to Allison Elizabeth Sleight (Thacker Sleight, PC), who represents Doe.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nothing about the blood of more schoolchildren dripping onto gun nuts' hands in Nashville, but yet another incel-enticing report at the Volokh Conspiracy about . . . this.
Carry on, clingers.
No, she was a mentally ill transgender. One of your peeps, not ours.
Based on what is rapidly being scrubbed from social media, I'm more inclined to say Transgender Terrorist than anything else...
Yup. Another instance of the stochastic terrorism of Gender Ideology funneling violence towards Christians.
When will the authorities finally address Trans Rage? Too many have needlessly died from this vicious ideology.
Don't you know?
When right wing violence occurs, it's due to right-wing rhetoric. When left wing violence occurs, it's due to right-wing policies.
- some dude on twitter
Right wing politics helps put the gun in their hands, yes.
I hope you die in a fire.
I hope you live a long happy life full of love and contentment.
I thank hoppy for again demonstrating that the "civility standards" this blog claimed to be enforcing when censoring liberals and libertarians were just partisan pretext and hypocritical bullshit.
If I am wrong about that, Volokh Conspirators, please provide your side of the story.
Unfortunately, the civility standard for this thread was established by its very first commenter.
The civility standard of this blog — vile racial slurs, overt gay-bashing, antisocial rants, casual misogyny, old-timey antisemitism and Islamophobia, rampant xenophobia, repeated and graphic calls for the murder and rape of liberals, more racism and white supremacy — was ordained by the proprietors’ choice of target audience.
No, they didn’t choose to be infested by you.
You volunteered to be the local asshole-in-chief.
Sterilizing black males would do much more to combat gun violence than banning guns.
Or maybe not.
Why does this white, male, movement conservative blog attract so many bigoted commenters and comments?
Racists, gay-bashers, Islamophobes, white nationalists, misogynists, antisemites, immigrant-haters, Christian dominionists, transphobics, and white supremacists seems to constitute the majority of the blog's audience.
Why?
Why are you grooming boys?
hoppy025 is the audience this blog craves and the defender this blog deserves.
Carry on, clingers. So far as a coalition of bigots, misfits, and culture war casualties can go in modern America, that is.
SOP. The NYT tried to blame the assassination of JFK by an actual card-carrying communist on Republicans. Then, when a gay Muslim gunned down a bunch of people in a gay nightclub they tried to blame it on straight white Christians. When (mostly) young black men perpetrate violence on Asian Americans it's somehow because of white supremacy. Same old, same old.
I'm always amazed when incidents involving blacks, muslims, transgender people suddenly become about them being black muslim or trangender, while hundreds of incidents by cis white men are 100% lone individuals with mental health problems (and access to guns.)
But passed background checks, Yay!
She killed them with transgenderism.
Why are you misgendering her? Don't you people believe that that's some form of genocide or something?
You need to have a long hard think about why you wrote that.
Because I wanted to know the answer.
Pronouns don't kill people, guns kill people.
Noted Gun Safety Advocate Jerry Sandusky ladies and gentlemen!!!!!!!!!
Seems right. Most states allow prosecution for actions that ultimately took place in another state if the planning or other steps took place in theirs. I don't see much of a philosophical difference.
Interesting. I had the exact opposite reaction. I don't know (or particularly care) about the extraterritoriality argument. I look at the facts presented above and see that Calvin Univ offered a study-abroad program but I don't see that Calvin Univ has any special duty of care over the actions, choices or policies of the other university. If the participant looked at Silliman's policies and Philippine law and nevertheless accepted the risk, she has no case. And if she didn't bother to look at Silliman's policies and Philippine law, she doesn't deserve to have a case. It seems to me that the only way she should have a case against Calvin is if Calvin actively participated in the wrongful acts. In other words, they had to actually plan something before your analogy should kick in.
Right, but the whole point of the Title IX amendments is that inaction is enough. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's how it is.
In this case, they likely promoted and advertised these other "partner" schools. Thus, I would think that they would absorb the other school's duty of care.
I understand the logic but I cannot accept where it takes us when you follow that principle to its logical conclusion. Is, for example, the university responsible for inaction when a student is assaulted at the bookstore down the street? The off-campus night club? Does that logic change when the bookstore or night club takes out an ad in the university newspaper or subsidizes a yearbook? If not, why not? What limiting principle puts some third parties in scope for the university's duty of care but leaves others out?
I think the logic has to go the other way. I may have a duty of care over the things I do or directly control. But once I've introduced you to a third party, you have an independent obligation to check them out. And if something bad nevertheless happens, that's between you and the other party.
I hear your point, but I also think that the relationship between schools for study abroad programs is much tighter than the relationship a school has with an off-campus book store.
Would your analysis change if the campus bookstore was operated by Barnes & Noble on university property?
In any event, I don't know that we can expect college kids to reasonably assess the risk at schools with which their university partnered for study abroad.
Personally? No, my analysis would not change. But my analysis starts from the fundamental position that college students are adults. They are mature enough to be on their own and to take responsibility for their own actions and inactions. They deserve no more (nor less) protections than the same-aged person who chooses to enter the workforce immediately.
Once the drinking age, credit card age, and pistol purchase age is lifted to 21, I'll agree, but not until then.
The rallying cry of the leftist child, always putting of responsibility and taking zero accountability for oneself in the world.
Not at all. Either 18-20 year olds are children, or they're adults. They shouldn't be children when it suits you (voting for Democraps, so that you can get your free stuff), and adults when it suits you.
I completely agree. I'd put the age at whatever age considers you old enough to volunteer for military service and to put your life at risk for your country. If you're old enough to serve, you're old enough to be served. If we can't trust you to drink or to vote responsibly, we certainly can't trust you with automatic weapons.
Personally, I'd put adulthood at age 18 but a single consistent definition is more important than quibbling over what the number should be. Pick one and be consistent.
But Title IX involves denial of Federal funding to an IHE, which isn't what I see here, unless I am missing something.
But the more important point that I want to make to parents -- do not trust your child's college to look after your child's wellbeing on these off-campus things!!!
Some years back now, UMass took an undergrad's tuition dollars and sent her on an internship down to DC. Either she or her boyfriend wound up calling me -- I forget which -- but UMass had essentially abandoned her down there and while I *fixed* the her problem (trust me), I was shocked at the extent to which undergrads were abandoned down there.
Sure undergrads are adults -- sort of --- and parents need to ask (a) exactly who is responsible for the wellbeing of my child and (b) what is that person's home phone number...
You, of course, are missing something.
Hopefully the response the school would give is to give the student's cell phone number to the parents. Unless the student is a minor, in which case the school should check its CallerID and recite the parent's number back to them.
I doubt the trip to the bar was on the school's Itinerary.
It's all fun and games until someone gets Flunitrazepam in their drink.
That seems like a very straightforward application of Morrison. Good lawyerin' by P in pleading a backup ground that feels so threadbare D may have not taken it seriously enough to give it real estate in its opening brief.
I mean, it’s an utterly frivolous lawsuit, but extraterritoriality isn’t the reason why. It would be just as frivolous if the assault happened in Arizona.
In court, yes -- but in front of ED OCR -- well, which region is Arizona in? In Region 1, the IHE would have some problems...
Yeah -- that is how I see it too. Absent additional facts (like if there had been similar incidents for each of the past 3 years, and Calvin failed to inform its students), I don't see any Title IX violation or any other tort for that matter. The location of the sexual assault is completely irrelevant. If it had happened at an off-campus bar in Grand Rapids, the analysis would be the same.
Me too.
When will the authorities finally address Trans Rage. Too many have needlessly died from this vicious ideology.
Calvin University absolutely should have a "Calvinball" team
Was the alleged rapist prosecuted under Phillipine law?
Whether he was prosecuted or not it's very, very, very unlikely that what he is claimed to have done was legal in the Philippine's. Or that training would have been needed to inform anyone of that fact
Despite the headline this case had nothing to do with extraterritoriality. That some lawyer tried to drag that in without justification is no reason to even mention it.