Education: University dismissed from suit over employee’s conduct

Where a woman alleged a Norfolk State University employee sexually abused her in his office, and that other employees facilitated the abuse or did not stop it, but each of her federal claims failed as a matter of law, the university’s motion to dismiss was granted.

Background

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that from 2002 to 2012 her guardian, Michael Williams, an employee of Norfolk State University, or NSU, sexually abused her in his office on NSU’s campus. Plaintiff further alleges that another NSU employee transported her across state lines to help facilitate this sexual abuse and often threatened her if she did not comply with Williams’ sexual requests.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint also mentions other NSU employees that were reportedly aware of Williams’ odd behavior towards plaintiff, and some who purportedly even knew that sexual abuse was occurring but took no action to stop it. Based upon these allegations, plaintiff advances multiple causes of action. NSU filed a motion to dismiss.

Mann and Clery Acts

Plaintiff begins by asserting that defendant violated three provisions of the Mann Act. However, these are all criminal statutes, and “[c]ourts uniformly recognize that ‘there is no private cause of action to pursue claims under federal criminal statutes.’”

Plaintiff next asserts that defendant violated the Clery Act. But that statute states that “[n]othing in this subsection may be construed to (i) create a cause of action against any institution of higher education or any employee of such an institution for any civil liability; or (ii) establish any standard of care.” Put simply, the Act does not provide any private right of action.

Immunity

Generally, state supported universities are considered arms of the state and therefore afforded the same sovereign immunity as states. The court sees no reason to treat NSU differently. Instructively, other judges of this court have expressly held that “NSU is a state agent and/or instrumentality for the purposes of evaluating the applicability of [sovereign] immunity.”

There are three exceptions to sovereign immunity. First, in limited circumstances, Congress may abrogate a state’s immunity based on Congress’s authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, a state may consent to suit and waive its immunity. Third, the Ex Parte Young exception allows certain claims to circumvent sovereign immunity if they are seeking prospective equitable relief against state officials who are committing ongoing violations of federal law.

The court finds that none of these exceptions apply here. Sovereign immunity thus deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

State claims

None of the remaining counts directly involve federal policy; all instead allege causes of action under Virginia law. This consideration counsels against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Additionally, “[a]llowing a state court to address state law matters would best serve judicial economy,” and Virginia state courts are more well-practiced in their own tort law than this court.

Additionally, were plaintiff to re-file her claims in state court, the parties would essentially be at the same stage of the litigation process as they are here. As such, fairness and convenience to the parties also weighs in favor of the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

After consideration of these factors, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s negligence and vicarious liability claims. The court, therefore, dismisses plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Doe v. Norfolk State University, Case No. 2:23-cv-470, Aug. 19, 2025. EDVA at Norfolk (Davis). VLW 025-3-339. 19 pp.