Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
A former student athlete’s Title IX retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the College of William & Mary can go forward, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled.
The plaintiff alleged that her basketball coach surveilled her and threatened to remove her from the team, which would have revoked her scholarship.
“Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court find that reasonable men may differ as to whether [the coach and the assistant athletic director’s] conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability,” U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson wrote. “Therefore, this determination is an issue for a jury.”
The opinion from the Eastern District of Virginia is Stover v. The College of William and Mary (VLW 022-3-472).
Surveillance and threats
Caroline Stover was a student with an athletic scholarship at William & Mary from 2018 to 2022. Her coach, Edward Swanson, directed Stover to live on campus after she failed to maintain her grade point average.
In October 2019, Swanson suspected Stover was living off campus, so he asked an assistant coach’s boyfriend — who was also a university employee — to surveille Stover at a townhouse and follow her vehicle.
Stover noticed she was being followed by a man in a silver sedan and reported it to the James City County Police Department. She saw the same vehicle the next day in a William & Mary parking lot near the athletic center and learned it belonged to the assistant athletic director for business affairs, Nate Englehardt.
During an investigation, the coaches admitted the surveillance, but Swanson threatened to kick Stover off the team if he saw her at the townhouse again.
Although the college didn’t find any violations of policy, it warned staff about their conduct, updated policies and instructed the athletic department to address its relationship with Stover.
Stover filed suit in November 2021 against William & Mary and several coaches and staff. She claimed the university was deliberately indifferent to her harassment and that staff retaliated against her in violation of Title IX.
She also sued for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims.
Title IX claims
Stover said the outcome of the college’s investigation showed a deliberate indifference to her sex-based harassment.
The judge agreed that Stover sufficiently alleged “a severe and hostile educational environment,” but her allegations of deliberate indifference “do not demonstrate that W & M’s response to Plaintiff’s harassment was ‘clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.’”
Further, Jackson held that Stover’s “allegations regarding Coach Swanson’s impact on her college basketball experience following her initial complaint are enough to sufficiently allege a plausible retaliation claim against W & M.”
Jackson added that Stover’s “allegations of future harm are neither imminent nor concrete and she does not have standing to seek injunctive relief under Title IX or 28 U.S.C. § 1983.”
Remaining claims
Stover claimed that university staff caused her extreme emotional distress by intentionally surveilling, intimidating and threatening her.
Jackson found those allegations plausible enough to survive dismissal.
“The Court disagrees with Defendant’s position and finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges severe and pervasive sex-based harassment … by alleging that Plaintiff ‘was subjected to surveillance and harassment by an unknown male who turned out to be [AAD] Engelhardt’ after he drove his car past Plaintiff several times while she visited a friend off campus and ‘took pictures to document her whereabouts.’”
— U.S. District Court Judge Raymond A. Jackson
“The Court disagrees with Defendant’s position and finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges severe and pervasive sex-based harassment … by alleging that Plaintiff ‘was subjected to surveillance and harassment by an unknown male who turned out to be [AAD] Engelhardt’ after he drove his car past Plaintiff several times while she visited a friend off campus and ‘took pictures to document her whereabouts,’” he wrote.
However, the judge agreed with the defendants that sovereign immunity barred Stover’s official capacity claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that an exception for prospective relief against ongoing violations didn’t apply.
“Because the official capacity claims rely on Defendants’ conduct that ‘occurred entirely in the past’ and is caveated by Plaintiff’s enrollment in a graduate school at W & M, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how Defendants continue to violate any federal law,” Jackson wrote.
Finally, the judge dismissed Stover’s assault claim because she didn’t adequately allege that university staff intended to cause or put her in fear of harmful or offensive contact.
