Voice of the Cats Sexually Harassed Just, MSU Investigation Says

br fan said:

PlayerRep said:

br fan said:

PlayerRep said:

MSU has said they don't have to furnish the records of the proceedings, because this guy was not in a position of trust under MT law. I continue to wonder (not doubt) what MSU's jurisdiction was for conducting a Title IX. While I am not a Title IX expert, this just doesn't seem like a Title IX situation. Neither party was employed by MSU, to my knowledge. This isn't a big deal; I'm just curious.

Click to expand...

MSU had jurisdiction because Amy Just filed a complaint with MSU. I'm not a Title IX expert either,but it appears MSU did what they were supposed to do. Without listing the exceptions, Title IX provides:

"No 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."

When the complaint was filed MSU had the obligation investigate it under IX, and they couldn't avoid the investigation merely because neither was employed by MSU. As this situation itself shows one can violate Title IX regardless of whether one is employed by or is a student of the institution. Regardless though, MSU had the obligation to investigate the complaint involving MSU, and MSU does have actions it can take, i.e. bar admission at events ala AG1, policies, etc., to minimize the chance of it occurring or from it happening again.

The only criticism I can see might be that it took so long for MSU to complete its investigation, but from the articles it appears that the delay was due to MSU insuring Sanderson's due process rights weren't violated, both in determining Sanderson violated Title IX and in not releasing information to the press. Although not mentioned in the article, however, I'm sure the investigation also looked into whether MSU should have or could have done something different.

Click to expand...

Filing a complaint doesn't create jurisdiction. There has been be jurisdiction under the law/rules.

Title IX doesn't apply to the the Missoulian or radio broadcast companies. It applies to schools.

How was Just excluded from, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under an educational program or activity? She didn't work for MSU. She wasn't in school. She wasn't an MSU athlete. The hook had to come from the other side, as the announcer worked for a third party, which had a contract with MSU. Maybe the contract has some provision.

Yes, if neither was employed by MSU, there wouldn't haven't have been jurisdiction. There needs to be a hook. Yes, MSU could probably bar the guy from campus, but note that none of what's been made public appeared on campus.

Click to expand...

MSU found that Sanderson's actions were "...sufficiently severe to limit Ms. Just's participation in university programs, services, opportunities, activities..." That finding violates the statute I quoted above.

I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming only a university employee can violate the statute; the statute itself does not limit its applicability to only university employees.

Click to expand...

PlayerRep said:

br fan said:

PlayerRep said:

br fan said:

MSU had jurisdiction because Amy Just filed a complaint with MSU. I'm not a Title IX expert either,but it appears MSU did what they were supposed to do. Without listing the exceptions, Title IX provides:

"No 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."

When the complaint was filed MSU had the obligation investigate it under IX, and they couldn't avoid the investigation merely because neither was employed by MSU. As this situation itself shows one can violate Title IX regardless of whether one is employed by or is a student of the institution. Regardless though, MSU had the obligation to investigate the complaint involving MSU, and MSU does have actions it can take, i.e. bar admission at events ala AG1, policies, etc., to minimize the chance of it occurring or from it happening again.

The only criticism I can see might be that it took so long for MSU to complete its investigation, but from the articles it appears that the delay was due to MSU insuring Sanderson's due process rights weren't violated, both in determining Sanderson violated Title IX and in not releasing information to the press. Although not mentioned in the article, however, I'm sure the investigation also looked into whether MSU should have or could have done something different.

Click to expand...

Filing a complaint doesn't create jurisdiction. There has been be jurisdiction under the law/rules.

Title IX doesn't apply to the the Missoulian or radio broadcast companies. It applies to schools.

How was Just excluded from, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under an educational program or activity? She didn't work for MSU. She wasn't in school. She wasn't an MSU athlete. The hook had to come from the other side, as the announcer worked for a third party, which had a contract with MSU. Maybe the contract has some provision.

Yes, if neither was employed by MSU, there wouldn't haven't have been jurisdiction. There needs to be a hook. Yes, MSU could probably bar the guy from campus, but note that none of what's been made public appeared on campus.

Click to expand...

MSU found that Sanderson's actions were "...sufficiently severe to limit Ms. Just's participation in university programs, services, opportunities, activities..." That finding violates the statute I quoted above.

I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming only a university employee can violate the statute; the statute itself does not limit its applicability to only university employees.

Click to expand...

An entity or court can find or do what it wants if no one challenges it. Have you seen any indication the announcer had a lawyer involved?

Where are you getting your first para from? Don't think I've seen that.

Just wasn't enrolled at MSU and didn't work there. I don't get that. Are you saying that a fan who wants to come to a game is covered by Tittle IX?

The statute does in fact limit itself to education. Employee or student.

Click to expand...

br fan said:

PlayerRep said:

br fan said:

PlayerRep said:

Filing a complaint doesn't create jurisdiction. There has been be jurisdiction under the law/rules.

Title IX doesn't apply to the the Missoulian or radio broadcast companies. It applies to schools.

How was Just excluded from, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under an educational program or activity? She didn't work for MSU. She wasn't in school. She wasn't an MSU athlete. The hook had to come from the other side, as the announcer worked for a third party, which had a contract with MSU. Maybe the contract has some provision.

Yes, if neither was employed by MSU, there wouldn't haven't have been jurisdiction. There needs to be a hook. Yes, MSU could probably bar the guy from campus, but note that none of what's been made public appeared on campus.

Click to expand...

MSU found that Sanderson's actions were "...sufficiently severe to limit Ms. Just's participation in university programs, services, opportunities, activities..." That finding violates the statute I quoted above.

I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming only a university employee can violate the statute; the statute itself does not limit its applicability to only university employees.

Click to expand...

An entity or court can find or do what it wants if no one challenges it. Have you seen any indication the announcer had a lawyer involved?

Where are you getting your first para from? Don't think I've seen that.

Just wasn't enrolled at MSU and didn't work there. I don't get that. Are you saying that a fan who wants to come to a game is covered by Tittle IX?

The statute does in fact limit itself to education. Employee or student.

Click to expand...

The quote I gave is part of a quote from the article linked in the first post of this thread.

An MSU game, a press conference, etc. are educational activities. MSU is responsible for those activities. When one member of the press made a complaint to MSU that another member of the press sexually harassed her to the point that she felt she could no longer attend the activities, MSU was required to investigate under Title IX. It was MSU's educational activities she was being excluded from.

I am saying that if a school receives a complaint from a fan that another fan sexually harasses her to the point that she can't attend a game the school does have the obligation to investigate it, and if the complaint is valid, to take action. No the school can't fire the harasser, or kick him out of school, but they can bar him from attending other events.

Click to expand...

PlayerRep said:

br fan said:

PlayerRep said:

br fan said:

MSU found that Sanderson's actions were "...sufficiently severe to limit Ms. Just's participation in university programs, services, opportunities, activities..." That finding violates the statute I quoted above.

I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming only a university employee can violate the statute; the statute itself does not limit its applicability to only university employees.

Click to expand...

An entity or court can find or do what it wants if no one challenges it. Have you seen any indication the announcer had a lawyer involved?

Where are you getting your first para from? Don't think I've seen that.

Just wasn't enrolled at MSU and didn't work there. I don't get that. Are you saying that a fan who wants to come to a game is covered by Tittle IX?

The statute does in fact limit itself to education. Employee or student.

Click to expand...

The quote I gave is part of a quote from the article linked in the first post of this thread.

An MSU game, a press conference, etc. are educational activities. MSU is responsible for those activities. When one member of the press made a complaint to MSU that another member of the press sexually harassed her to the point that she felt she could no longer attend the activities, MSU was required to investigate under Title IX. It was MSU's educational activities she was being excluded from.

I am saying that if a school receives a complaint from a fan that another fan sexually harasses her to the point that she can't attend a game the school does have the obligation to investigate it, and if the complaint is valid, to take action. No the school can't fire the harasser, or kick him out of school, but they can bar him from attending other events.

Click to expand...

You have made some good arguments and you may be right. However, I don't think Title IX is that broad. I can't imagine that the 2 fans at game situation is covered by Title IX. I will do more looking when I get time. Thx.

Click to expand...

MissoulaMarinerFan said:

PlayerRep said:

br fan said:

PlayerRep said:

An entity or court can find or do what it wants if no one challenges it. Have you seen any indication the announcer had a lawyer involved?

Where are you getting your first para from? Don't think I've seen that.

Just wasn't enrolled at MSU and didn't work there. I don't get that. Are you saying that a fan who wants to come to a game is covered by Tittle IX?

The statute does in fact limit itself to education. Employee or student.

Click to expand...

The quote I gave is part of a quote from the article linked in the first post of this thread.

An MSU game, a press conference, etc. are educational activities. MSU is responsible for those activities. When one member of the press made a complaint to MSU that another member of the press sexually harassed her to the point that she felt she could no longer attend the activities, MSU was required to investigate under Title IX. It was MSU's educational activities she was being excluded from.

I am saying that if a school receives a complaint from a fan that another fan sexually harasses her to the point that she can't attend a game the school does have the obligation to investigate it, and if the complaint is valid, to take action. No the school can't fire the harasser, or kick him out of school, but they can bar him from attending other events.

Click to expand...

You have made some good arguments and you may be right. However, I don't think Title IX is that broad. I can't imagine that the 2 fans at game situation is covered by Title IX. I will do more looking when I get time. Thx.

Click to expand...

Would it be similar to the situation between 2 Griz fans when Hauck was first hired back and one of them was banned from coming to games? Did the University investigate or did they come to that decision after outside investigation?

Click to expand...

CDAGRIZ said:

All I will say:
I think everyone can agree the dude was in the wrong here. Without going through everything, I believe PR is commenting on the breadth of Title IX by asking how it could apply in an actual lawsuit involving two non-employees/students. The answer could very well be "it doesn't", but that Just's complaint (which was not, to my knowledge, a civil complaint against MSU, but more of a 'grievance') was submitted to MSU's Title IX Coordinator, who then opened an investigation. The investigation may or may not have fell under the Title IX umbrella, but the Title IX Coordinator was simply the one who received it. I don't really see a problem there. I do, however, think it was interesting that MSU's findings used some Title IX verbiage, which definitely added to my confusion on whether it was an actual Title IX investigation, or just a general investigation of an alleged incident, because . . .

If this was a civil case against MSU for damages, I think PR's jurisdictional question becomes a lot more interesting. I posit that such a case wouldn't turn on whether Sanderson was sufficiently tied to MSU to trigger MSU's Title IX obligations, but rather, Ms. Just's standing to bring such a suit as a non-student/non-employee. Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of a non-student's Title IX claim against a college.

The district court held that the non-student (who was actually an athletic recruit) did not have a private right of action under Title IX as a non-student for an alleged incident that happened on a recruiting trip, noting "the plaintiff’s argument would result in any person invited to visit a college campus having standing to sue for student-on-student harassment under Title IX."*

But the 8th Circuit punted on the issue of standing of a non-student. The 8th Circuit, instead, found that the non-student's complaint failed to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the college, i.e., insufficient pleading. Accordingly, it was not necessary to address the standing of a non-student to sue the college. While the 8th Circuit did not directly overrule the district court on the standing issue, it did assume the student had standing for the sake of argument in assessing her allegations for sufficiency at the pleading stage. This was classic punting by a Circuit Court of Appeals not wanting to create precedent (that a non-student has no standing), but coming to the same result in upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit.

While the 8th Circuit did not address standing, it did set precedent for pleading requirements under Title IX that could be of interest for those who wish to read the linked article. That case was student/non-student harassment, but I think a lot of the same arguments could be applied to employee/non-employee cases, and definitely pseudo-employee/non-employee cases. Oh, yeah, I ripped all of this from this article:

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ide...missal-of-a-non-student-title-ix-claim-upheld

In the end, Just's complaint may have been under Title IX, and MSU did nothing wrong in investigating. But, I believe MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit against it in this instance. That's the distinction I see. Anyway, I doubt this clears anything up for anyone, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

*Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

CDAGRIZ said:

All I will say:
I think everyone can agree the dude was in the wrong here. Without going through everything, I believe PR is commenting on the breadth of Title IX by asking how it could apply in an actual lawsuit involving two non-employees/students. The answer could very well be "it doesn't", but that Just's complaint (which was not, to my knowledge, a civil complaint against MSU, but more of a 'grievance') was submitted to MSU's Title IX Coordinator, who then opened an investigation. The investigation may or may not have fell under the Title IX umbrella, but the Title IX Coordinator was simply the one who received it. I don't really see a problem there. I do, however, think it was interesting that MSU's findings used some Title IX verbiage, which definitely added to my confusion on whether it was an actual Title IX investigation, or just a general investigation of an alleged incident, because . . .

If this was a civil case against MSU for damages, I think PR's jurisdictional question becomes a lot more interesting. I posit that such a case wouldn't turn on whether Sanderson was sufficiently tied to MSU to trigger MSU's Title IX obligations, but rather, Ms. Just's standing to bring such a suit as a non-student/non-employee. Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of a non-student's Title IX claim against a college.

The district court held that the non-student (who was actually an athletic recruit) did not have a private right of action under Title IX as a non-student for an alleged incident that happened on a recruiting trip, noting "the plaintiff’s argument would result in any person invited to visit a college campus having standing to sue for student-on-student harassment under Title IX."*

But the 8th Circuit punted on the issue of standing of a non-student. The 8th Circuit, instead, found that the non-student's complaint failed to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the college, i.e., insufficient pleading. Accordingly, it was not necessary to address the standing of a non-student to sue the college. While the 8th Circuit did not directly overrule the district court on the standing issue, it did assume the student had standing for the sake of argument in assessing her allegations for sufficiency at the pleading stage. This was classic punting by a Circuit Court of Appeals not wanting to create precedent (that a non-student has no standing), but coming to the same result in upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit.

While the 8th Circuit did not address standing, it did set precedent for pleading requirements under Title IX that could be of interest for those who wish to read the linked article. That case was student/non-student harassment, but I think a lot of the same arguments could be applied to employee/non-employee cases, and definitely pseudo-employee/non-employee cases. Oh, yeah, I ripped all of this from this article:

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ide...missal-of-a-non-student-title-ix-claim-upheld

In the end, Just's complaint may have been under Title IX, and MSU did nothing wrong in investigating. But, I believe MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit against it in this instance. That's the distinction I see. Anyway, I doubt this clears anything up for anyone, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

*Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

br fan said:

CDAGRIZ said:

All I will say:
I think everyone can agree the dude was in the wrong here. Without going through everything, I believe PR is commenting on the breadth of Title IX by asking how it could apply in an actual lawsuit involving two non-employees/students. The answer could very well be "it doesn't", but that Just's complaint (which was not, to my knowledge, a civil complaint against MSU, but more of a 'grievance') was submitted to MSU's Title IX Coordinator, who then opened an investigation. The investigation may or may not have fell under the Title IX umbrella, but the Title IX Coordinator was simply the one who received it. I don't really see a problem there. I do, however, think it was interesting that MSU's findings used some Title IX verbiage, which definitely added to my confusion on whether it was an actual Title IX investigation, or just a general investigation of an alleged incident, because . . .

If this was a civil case against MSU for damages, I think PR's jurisdictional question becomes a lot more interesting. I posit that such a case wouldn't turn on whether Sanderson was sufficiently tied to MSU to trigger MSU's Title IX obligations, but rather, Ms. Just's standing to bring such a suit as a non-student/non-employee. Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of a non-student's Title IX claim against a college.

The district court held that the non-student (who was actually an athletic recruit) did not have a private right of action under Title IX as a non-student for an alleged incident that happened on a recruiting trip, noting "the plaintiff’s argument would result in any person invited to visit a college campus having standing to sue for student-on-student harassment under Title IX."*

But the 8th Circuit punted on the issue of standing of a non-student. The 8th Circuit, instead, found that the non-student's complaint failed to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the college, i.e., insufficient pleading. Accordingly, it was not necessary to address the standing of a non-student to sue the college. While the 8th Circuit did not directly overrule the district court on the standing issue, it did assume the student had standing for the sake of argument in assessing her allegations for sufficiency at the pleading stage. This was classic punting by a Circuit Court of Appeals not wanting to create precedent (that a non-student has no standing), but coming to the same result in upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit.

While the 8th Circuit did not address standing, it did set precedent for pleading requirements under Title IX that could be of interest for those who wish to read the linked article. That case was student/non-student harassment, but I think a lot of the same arguments could be applied to employee/non-employee cases, and definitely pseudo-employee/non-employee cases. Oh, yeah, I ripped all of this from this article:

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ide...missal-of-a-non-student-title-ix-claim-upheld

In the end, Just's complaint may have been under Title IX, and MSU did nothing wrong in investigating. But, I believe MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit against it in this instance. That's the distinction I see. Anyway, I doubt this clears anything up for anyone, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

*Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

That is interesting and I'm glad you posted it, but I don't think it changes anything I stated above. I didn't go back and read it but I believe the newspaper article specifically stated MSU's investigation was not a criminal investigation or a civil investigation; it was a Title IX investigation. I also agree with your statement that MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit in this instance.

However, if MSU had not conducted its investigation, and if warranted not taken reasonable actions against Sanderson within MSU's power, then MSU may have set itself up for a Title IX lawsuit by Just for not complying with MSU's obligations under Title IX. As it is MSU protected itself from a claim by Just under Title IX, as well as a claim by Sanderson. In the latter regard, even though he moved I'm assuming MSU has banned Sanderson from attending certain MSU events, and I don't believe Sanderson can now claim MSU is unreasonably preventing him from attending those events which are being put on by a publicly supported educational institution.

Click to expand...

br fan said:

CDAGRIZ said:

All I will say:
I think everyone can agree the dude was in the wrong here. Without going through everything, I believe PR is commenting on the breadth of Title IX by asking how it could apply in an actual lawsuit involving two non-employees/students. The answer could very well be "it doesn't", but that Just's complaint (which was not, to my knowledge, a civil complaint against MSU, but more of a 'grievance') was submitted to MSU's Title IX Coordinator, who then opened an investigation. The investigation may or may not have fell under the Title IX umbrella, but the Title IX Coordinator was simply the one who received it. I don't really see a problem there. I do, however, think it was interesting that MSU's findings used some Title IX verbiage, which definitely added to my confusion on whether it was an actual Title IX investigation, or just a general investigation of an alleged incident, because . . .

If this was a civil case against MSU for damages, I think PR's jurisdictional question becomes a lot more interesting. I posit that such a case wouldn't turn on whether Sanderson was sufficiently tied to MSU to trigger MSU's Title IX obligations, but rather, Ms. Just's standing to bring such a suit as a non-student/non-employee. Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of a non-student's Title IX claim against a college.

The district court held that the non-student (who was actually an athletic recruit) did not have a private right of action under Title IX as a non-student for an alleged incident that happened on a recruiting trip, noting "the plaintiff’s argument would result in any person invited to visit a college campus having standing to sue for student-on-student harassment under Title IX."*

But the 8th Circuit punted on the issue of standing of a non-student. The 8th Circuit, instead, found that the non-student's complaint failed to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the college, i.e., insufficient pleading. Accordingly, it was not necessary to address the standing of a non-student to sue the college. While the 8th Circuit did not directly overrule the district court on the standing issue, it did assume the student had standing for the sake of argument in assessing her allegations for sufficiency at the pleading stage. This was classic punting by a Circuit Court of Appeals not wanting to create precedent (that a non-student has no standing), but coming to the same result in upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit.

While the 8th Circuit did not address standing, it did set precedent for pleading requirements under Title IX that could be of interest for those who wish to read the linked article. That case was student/non-student harassment, but I think a lot of the same arguments could be applied to employee/non-employee cases, and definitely pseudo-employee/non-employee cases. Oh, yeah, I ripped all of this from this article:

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ide...missal-of-a-non-student-title-ix-claim-upheld

In the end, Just's complaint may have been under Title IX, and MSU did nothing wrong in investigating. But, I believe MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit against it in this instance. That's the distinction I see. Anyway, I doubt this clears anything up for anyone, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

*Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

That is interesting and I'm glad you posted it, but I don't think it changes anything I stated above. I didn't go back and read it but I believe the newspaper article specifically stated MSU's investigation was not a criminal investigation or a civil investigation; it was a Title IX investigation. I also agree with your statement that MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit in this instance.

However, if MSU had not conducted its investigation, and if warranted not taken reasonable actions against Sanderson within MSU's power, then MSU may have set itself up for a Title IX lawsuit by Just for not complying with MSU's obligations under Title IX. As it is MSU protected itself from a claim by Just under Title IX, as well as a claim by Sanderson. In the latter regard, even though he moved I'm assuming MSU has banned Sanderson from attending certain MSU events, and I don't believe Sanderson can now claim MSU is unreasonably preventing him from attending those events which are being put on by a publicly supported educational institution.

Click to expand...

CDAGRIZ said:

br fan said:

CDAGRIZ said:

All I will say:
I think everyone can agree the dude was in the wrong here. Without going through everything, I believe PR is commenting on the breadth of Title IX by asking how it could apply in an actual lawsuit involving two non-employees/students. The answer could very well be "it doesn't", but that Just's complaint (which was not, to my knowledge, a civil complaint against MSU, but more of a 'grievance') was submitted to MSU's Title IX Coordinator, who then opened an investigation. The investigation may or may not have fell under the Title IX umbrella, but the Title IX Coordinator was simply the one who received it. I don't really see a problem there. I do, however, think it was interesting that MSU's findings used some Title IX verbiage, which definitely added to my confusion on whether it was an actual Title IX investigation, or just a general investigation of an alleged incident, because . . .

If this was a civil case against MSU for damages, I think PR's jurisdictional question becomes a lot more interesting. I posit that such a case wouldn't turn on whether Sanderson was sufficiently tied to MSU to trigger MSU's Title IX obligations, but rather, Ms. Just's standing to bring such a suit as a non-student/non-employee. Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of a non-student's Title IX claim against a college.

The district court held that the non-student (who was actually an athletic recruit) did not have a private right of action under Title IX as a non-student for an alleged incident that happened on a recruiting trip, noting "the plaintiff’s argument would result in any person invited to visit a college campus having standing to sue for student-on-student harassment under Title IX."*

But the 8th Circuit punted on the issue of standing of a non-student. The 8th Circuit, instead, found that the non-student's complaint failed to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the college, i.e., insufficient pleading. Accordingly, it was not necessary to address the standing of a non-student to sue the college. While the 8th Circuit did not directly overrule the district court on the standing issue, it did assume the student had standing for the sake of argument in assessing her allegations for sufficiency at the pleading stage. This was classic punting by a Circuit Court of Appeals not wanting to create precedent (that a non-student has no standing), but coming to the same result in upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit.

While the 8th Circuit did not address standing, it did set precedent for pleading requirements under Title IX that could be of interest for those who wish to read the linked article. That case was student/non-student harassment, but I think a lot of the same arguments could be applied to employee/non-employee cases, and definitely pseudo-employee/non-employee cases. Oh, yeah, I ripped all of this from this article:

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ide...missal-of-a-non-student-title-ix-claim-upheld

In the end, Just's complaint may have been under Title IX, and MSU did nothing wrong in investigating. But, I believe MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit against it in this instance. That's the distinction I see. Anyway, I doubt this clears anything up for anyone, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

*Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

That is interesting and I'm glad you posted it, but I don't think it changes anything I stated above. I didn't go back and read it but I believe the newspaper article specifically stated MSU's investigation was not a criminal investigation or a civil investigation; it was a Title IX investigation. I also agree with your statement that MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit in this instance.

However, if MSU had not conducted its investigation, and if warranted not taken reasonable actions against Sanderson within MSU's power, then MSU may have set itself up for a Title IX lawsuit by Just for not complying with MSU's obligations under Title IX. As it is MSU protected itself from a claim by Just under Title IX, as well as a claim by Sanderson. In the latter regard, even though he moved I'm assuming MSU has banned Sanderson from attending certain MSU events, and I don't believe Sanderson can now claim MSU is unreasonably preventing him from attending those events which are being put on by a publicly supported educational institution.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with the bold. "Deliberate indifference" (I suppose, ignoring complaints) was one of the issues the 8th Circuit analyzed in holding that the accuser's complaint was deficient according to that article I linked. MSU had to investigate and issue it's findings. I agree.

Now, if MSU concluded that Sanderson or MSU violated Title IX, MSU is incorrect at best, and a bit reckless at worst. First, Sanderson personally can't because he isn't an institution receiving federal funds. Second, MSU almost certainly didn't as explained in my last post above. Therefore, while MSU could conclude that there was a Title IX violation, it would be both (a) about as legally instructive as you or I concluding the same, and (b) against its self interests. That's why I think MSU employed a curious choice of words in describing its findings to seemingly mirror the language of Title IX violations.

MSU may have done better to explicitly note that, while the dude's actions caused her to not attend games, etc., it found no Title IX violation. Now that MSU said the investigation found that the incident(s) constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services", couldn't a potential plaintiff say, "Hey, MSU, you publicly stated there was an ostensible Title IX issue, now all I have to do is find standing, and you're f-ed."? Does that make sense? IDK, it does to me, but I could be way off.

Click to expand...

PlayerRep said:

CDAGRIZ said:

br fan said:

CDAGRIZ said:

All I will say:
I think everyone can agree the dude was in the wrong here. Without going through everything, I believe PR is commenting on the breadth of Title IX by asking how it could apply in an actual lawsuit involving two non-employees/students. The answer could very well be "it doesn't", but that Just's complaint (which was not, to my knowledge, a civil complaint against MSU, but more of a 'grievance') was submitted to MSU's Title IX Coordinator, who then opened an investigation. The investigation may or may not have fell under the Title IX umbrella, but the Title IX Coordinator was simply the one who received it. I don't really see a problem there. I do, however, think it was interesting that MSU's findings used some Title IX verbiage, which definitely added to my confusion on whether it was an actual Title IX investigation, or just a general investigation of an alleged incident, because . . .

If this was a civil case against MSU for damages, I think PR's jurisdictional question becomes a lot more interesting. I posit that such a case wouldn't turn on whether Sanderson was sufficiently tied to MSU to trigger MSU's Title IX obligations, but rather, Ms. Just's standing to bring such a suit as a non-student/non-employee. Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of a non-student's Title IX claim against a college.

The district court held that the non-student (who was actually an athletic recruit) did not have a private right of action under Title IX as a non-student for an alleged incident that happened on a recruiting trip, noting "the plaintiff’s argument would result in any person invited to visit a college campus having standing to sue for student-on-student harassment under Title IX."*

But the 8th Circuit punted on the issue of standing of a non-student. The 8th Circuit, instead, found that the non-student's complaint failed to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the college, i.e., insufficient pleading. Accordingly, it was not necessary to address the standing of a non-student to sue the college. While the 8th Circuit did not directly overrule the district court on the standing issue, it did assume the student had standing for the sake of argument in assessing her allegations for sufficiency at the pleading stage. This was classic punting by a Circuit Court of Appeals not wanting to create precedent (that a non-student has no standing), but coming to the same result in upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit.

While the 8th Circuit did not address standing, it did set precedent for pleading requirements under Title IX that could be of interest for those who wish to read the linked article. That case was student/non-student harassment, but I think a lot of the same arguments could be applied to employee/non-employee cases, and definitely pseudo-employee/non-employee cases. Oh, yeah, I ripped all of this from this article:

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ide...missal-of-a-non-student-title-ix-claim-upheld

In the end, Just's complaint may have been under Title IX, and MSU did nothing wrong in investigating. But, I believe MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit against it in this instance. That's the distinction I see. Anyway, I doubt this clears anything up for anyone, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

*Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

That is interesting and I'm glad you posted it, but I don't think it changes anything I stated above. I didn't go back and read it but I believe the newspaper article specifically stated MSU's investigation was not a criminal investigation or a civil investigation; it was a Title IX investigation. I also agree with your statement that MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit in this instance.

However, if MSU had not conducted its investigation, and if warranted not taken reasonable actions against Sanderson within MSU's power, then MSU may have set itself up for a Title IX lawsuit by Just for not complying with MSU's obligations under Title IX. As it is MSU protected itself from a claim by Just under Title IX, as well as a claim by Sanderson. In the latter regard, even though he moved I'm assuming MSU has banned Sanderson from attending certain MSU events, and I don't believe Sanderson can now claim MSU is unreasonably preventing him from attending those events which are being put on by a publicly supported educational institution.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with the bold. "Deliberate indifference" (I suppose, ignoring complaints) was one of the issues the 8th Circuit analyzed in holding that the accuser's complaint was deficient according to that article I linked. MSU had to investigate and issue it's findings. I agree.

Now, if MSU concluded that Sanderson or MSU violated Title IX, MSU is incorrect at best, and a bit reckless at worst. First, Sanderson personally can't because he isn't an institution receiving federal funds. Second, MSU almost certainly didn't as explained in my last post above. Therefore, while MSU could conclude that there was a Title IX violation, it would be both (a) about as legally instructive as you or I concluding the same, and (b) against its self interests. That's why I think MSU employed a curious choice of words in describing its findings to seemingly mirror the language of Title IX violations.

MSU may have done better to explicitly note that, while the dude's actions caused her to not attend games, etc., it found no Title IX violation. Now that MSU said the investigation found that the incident(s) constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services", couldn't a potential plaintiff say, "Hey, MSU, you publicly stated there was an ostensible Title IX issue, now all I have to do is find standing, and you're f-ed."? Does that make sense? IDK, it does to me, but I could be way off.

Click to expand...

I posted before reading your post. I agree. Now if the announcer was in fact employed by MSU, then MSU would have Title IX jurisdiction. Maybe, once more info is out, like the report, it will be clear that MSU did have clear jurisdiction under Title IX, and why.

Click to expand...

CDAGRIZ said:

PlayerRep said:

CDAGRIZ said:

br fan said:

That is interesting and I'm glad you posted it, but I don't think it changes anything I stated above. I didn't go back and read it but I believe the newspaper article specifically stated MSU's investigation was not a criminal investigation or a civil investigation; it was a Title IX investigation. I also agree with your statement that MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit in this instance.

However, if MSU had not conducted its investigation, and if warranted not taken reasonable actions against Sanderson within MSU's power, then MSU may have set itself up for a Title IX lawsuit by Just for not complying with MSU's obligations under Title IX. As it is MSU protected itself from a claim by Just under Title IX, as well as a claim by Sanderson. In the latter regard, even though he moved I'm assuming MSU has banned Sanderson from attending certain MSU events, and I don't believe Sanderson can now claim MSU is unreasonably preventing him from attending those events which are being put on by a publicly supported educational institution.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with the bold. "Deliberate indifference" (I suppose, ignoring complaints) was one of the issues the 8th Circuit analyzed in holding that the accuser's complaint was deficient according to that article I linked. MSU had to investigate and issue it's findings. I agree.

Now, if MSU concluded that Sanderson or MSU violated Title IX, MSU is incorrect at best, and a bit reckless at worst. First, Sanderson personally can't because he isn't an institution receiving federal funds. Second, MSU almost certainly didn't as explained in my last post above. Therefore, while MSU could conclude that there was a Title IX violation, it would be both (a) about as legally instructive as you or I concluding the same, and (b) against its self interests. That's why I think MSU employed a curious choice of words in describing its findings to seemingly mirror the language of Title IX violations.

MSU may have done better to explicitly note that, while the dude's actions caused her to not attend games, etc., it found no Title IX violation. Now that MSU said the investigation found that the incident(s) constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services", couldn't a potential plaintiff say, "Hey, MSU, you publicly stated there was an ostensible Title IX issue, now all I have to do is find standing, and you're f-ed."? Does that make sense? IDK, it does to me, but I could be way off.

Click to expand...

I posted before reading your post. I agree. Now if the announcer was in fact employed by MSU, then MSU would have Title IX jurisdiction. Maybe, once more info is out, like the report, it will be clear that MSU did have clear jurisdiction under Title IX, and why.

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page; at least on the same chapter. I don't know how MSU could actually have "jurisdiction" over anything, but if Sanderson was an employee, it could be appropriately reviewed under the Title IX lens. However, even given the non-student/non-employee status of Ms. Just (and therefore tenuous standing in a potential suit against MSU), I don't think it was wise to publish that Sanderson's actions constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services". Using that language is implicative.

I like the technical discussions, but I don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that I'm certainly not defending Sanderson's actions, or questioning Ms. Just's account of events. I hope my boring, academic takes on the handling of this don't take away from my overall view of what is right and wrong.

Click to expand...

MissoulaMarinerFan said:

CDAGRIZ said:

PlayerRep said:

CDAGRIZ said:

Totally agree with the bold. "Deliberate indifference" (I suppose, ignoring complaints) was one of the issues the 8th Circuit analyzed in holding that the accuser's complaint was deficient according to that article I linked. MSU had to investigate and issue it's findings. I agree.

Now, if MSU concluded that Sanderson or MSU violated Title IX, MSU is incorrect at best, and a bit reckless at worst. First, Sanderson personally can't because he isn't an institution receiving federal funds. Second, MSU almost certainly didn't as explained in my last post above. Therefore, while MSU could conclude that there was a Title IX violation, it would be both (a) about as legally instructive as you or I concluding the same, and (b) against its self interests. That's why I think MSU employed a curious choice of words in describing its findings to seemingly mirror the language of Title IX violations.

MSU may have done better to explicitly note that, while the dude's actions caused her to not attend games, etc., it found no Title IX violation. Now that MSU said the investigation found that the incident(s) constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services", couldn't a potential plaintiff say, "Hey, MSU, you publicly stated there was an ostensible Title IX issue, now all I have to do is find standing, and you're f-ed."? Does that make sense? IDK, it does to me, but I could be way off.

Click to expand...

I posted before reading your post. I agree. Now if the announcer was in fact employed by MSU, then MSU would have Title IX jurisdiction. Maybe, once more info is out, like the report, it will be clear that MSU did have clear jurisdiction under Title IX, and why.

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page; at least on the same chapter. I don't know how MSU could actually have "jurisdiction" over anything, but if Sanderson was an employee, it could be appropriately reviewed under the Title IX lens. However, even given the non-student/non-employee status of Ms. Just (and therefore tenuous standing in a potential suit against MSU), I don't think it was wise to publish that Sanderson's actions constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services". Using that language is implicative.

I like the technical discussions, but I don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that I'm certainly not defending Sanderson's actions, or questioning Ms. Just's account of events. I hope my boring, academic takes on the handling of this don't take away from my overall view of what is right and wrong.

Click to expand...

You both are way smarter than I am on this subject and I find it interesting - I think the thing that makes this murky is that technically Sanderson was employed by Learfield doing work for MSU, rather than being hired/employed by MSU to be voice of the bobcats - I believe PR mentioned this somewhere earlier. Saw your bolded quote above so I figured it pertinent to mention again.

Click to expand...

CDAGRIZ said:

MissoulaMarinerFan said:

You both are way smarter than I am on this subject and I find it interesting - I think the thing that makes this murky is that technically Sanderson was employed by Learfield doing work for MSU, rather than being hired/employed by MSU to be voice of the bobcats - I believe PR mentioned this somewhere earlier. Saw your bolded quote above so I figured it pertinent to mention again.

Click to expand...

MissoulaMarinerFan, I think what you point out is an extremely important technicality that would go even more toward MSU's smarter play being an explicit statement that it found no Title IX violation rather than mirroring Title IX violation language in its finding. I'm not in compliance, and maybe MSU couldn't do that. Who knows?

Also, I am definitely not smarter than anyone on this subject; I can barely read.

Click to expand...

AllWeatherFan said:

CDAGRIZ said:

MissoulaMarinerFan said:

You both are way smarter than I am on this subject and I find it interesting - I think the thing that makes this murky is that technically Sanderson was employed by Learfield doing work for MSU, rather than being hired/employed by MSU to be voice of the bobcats - I believe PR mentioned this somewhere earlier. Saw your bolded quote above so I figured it pertinent to mention again.

Click to expand...

MissoulaMarinerFan, I think what you point out is an extremely important technicality that would go even more toward MSU's smarter play being an explicit statement that it found no Title IX violation rather than mirroring Title IX violation language in its finding. I'm not in compliance, and maybe MSU couldn't do that. Who knows?

Also, I am definitely not smarter than anyone on this subject; I can barely read.

Click to expand...

Good points. And also, technically, Sanderson, rather than the "voice of the Cats," sexually assaulted Amie Just.

Click to expand...

CDAGRIZ said:

AllWeatherFan said:

CDAGRIZ said:

MissoulaMarinerFan said:

You both are way smarter than I am on this subject and I find it interesting - I think the thing that makes this murky is that technically Sanderson was employed by Learfield doing work for MSU, rather than being hired/employed by MSU to be voice of the bobcats - I believe PR mentioned this somewhere earlier. Saw your bolded quote above so I figured it pertinent to mention again.

Click to expand...

MissoulaMarinerFan, I think what you point out is an extremely important technicality that would go even more toward MSU's smarter play being an explicit statement that it found no Title IX violation rather than mirroring Title IX violation language in its finding. I'm not in compliance, and maybe MSU couldn't do that. Who knows?

Also, I am definitely not smarter than anyone on this subject; I can barely read.

Click to expand...

Good points. And also, technically, Sanderson, rather than the "voice of the Cats," sexually assaulted Amie Just.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But I'm disappointed you missed the opportunity to bold my last line in saying "Good points". I'm going to just assume you meant to do so.

Click to expand...

CDAGRIZ said:

PlayerRep said:

CDAGRIZ said:

br fan said:

That is interesting and I'm glad you posted it, but I don't think it changes anything I stated above. I didn't go back and read it but I believe the newspaper article specifically stated MSU's investigation was not a criminal investigation or a civil investigation; it was a Title IX investigation. I also agree with your statement that MSU could likely defeat an actual Title IX lawsuit in this instance.

However, if MSU had not conducted its investigation, and if warranted not taken reasonable actions against Sanderson within MSU's power, then MSU may have set itself up for a Title IX lawsuit by Just for not complying with MSU's obligations under Title IX. As it is MSU protected itself from a claim by Just under Title IX, as well as a claim by Sanderson. In the latter regard, even though he moved I'm assuming MSU has banned Sanderson from attending certain MSU events, and I don't believe Sanderson can now claim MSU is unreasonably preventing him from attending those events which are being put on by a publicly supported educational institution.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with the bold. "Deliberate indifference" (I suppose, ignoring complaints) was one of the issues the 8th Circuit analyzed in holding that the accuser's complaint was deficient according to that article I linked. MSU had to investigate and issue it's findings. I agree.

Now, if MSU concluded that Sanderson or MSU violated Title IX, MSU is incorrect at best, and a bit reckless at worst. First, Sanderson personally can't because he isn't an institution receiving federal funds. Second, MSU almost certainly didn't as explained in my last post above. Therefore, while MSU could conclude that there was a Title IX violation, it would be both (a) about as legally instructive as you or I concluding the same, and (b) against its self interests. That's why I think MSU employed a curious choice of words in describing its findings to seemingly mirror the language of Title IX violations.

MSU may have done better to explicitly note that, while the dude's actions caused her to not attend games, etc., it found no Title IX violation. Now that MSU said the investigation found that the incident(s) constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services", couldn't a potential plaintiff say, "Hey, MSU, you publicly stated there was an ostensible Title IX issue, now all I have to do is find standing, and you're f-ed."? Does that make sense? IDK, it does to me, but I could be way off.

Click to expand...

I posted before reading your post. I agree. Now if the announcer was in fact employed by MSU, then MSU would have Title IX jurisdiction. Maybe, once more info is out, like the report, it will be clear that MSU did have clear jurisdiction under Title IX, and why.

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page; at least on the same chapter. I don't know how MSU could actually have "jurisdiction" over anything, but if Sanderson was an employee, it could be appropriately reviewed under the Title IX lens. However, even given the non-student/non-employee status of Ms. Just (and therefore tenuous standing in a potential suit against MSU), I don't think it was wise to publish that Sanderson's actions constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services". Using that language is implicative.

I like the technical discussions, but I don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that I'm certainly not defending Sanderson's actions, or questioning Ms. Just's account of events. I hope my boring, academic takes on the handling of this don't take away from my overall view of what is right and wrong.

Click to expand...

br fan said:

CDAGRIZ said:

PlayerRep said:

CDAGRIZ said:

Totally agree with the bold. "Deliberate indifference" (I suppose, ignoring complaints) was one of the issues the 8th Circuit analyzed in holding that the accuser's complaint was deficient according to that article I linked. MSU had to investigate and issue it's findings. I agree.

Now, if MSU concluded that Sanderson or MSU violated Title IX, MSU is incorrect at best, and a bit reckless at worst. First, Sanderson personally can't because he isn't an institution receiving federal funds. Second, MSU almost certainly didn't as explained in my last post above. Therefore, while MSU could conclude that there was a Title IX violation, it would be both (a) about as legally instructive as you or I concluding the same, and (b) against its self interests. That's why I think MSU employed a curious choice of words in describing its findings to seemingly mirror the language of Title IX violations.

MSU may have done better to explicitly note that, while the dude's actions caused her to not attend games, etc., it found no Title IX violation. Now that MSU said the investigation found that the incident(s) constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services", couldn't a potential plaintiff say, "Hey, MSU, you publicly stated there was an ostensible Title IX issue, now all I have to do is find standing, and you're f-ed."? Does that make sense? IDK, it does to me, but I could be way off.

Click to expand...

I posted before reading your post. I agree. Now if the announcer was in fact employed by MSU, then MSU would have Title IX jurisdiction. Maybe, once more info is out, like the report, it will be clear that MSU did have clear jurisdiction under Title IX, and why.

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page; at least on the same chapter. I don't know how MSU could actually have "jurisdiction" over anything, but if Sanderson was an employee, it could be appropriately reviewed under the Title IX lens. However, even given the non-student/non-employee status of Ms. Just (and therefore tenuous standing in a potential suit against MSU), I don't think it was wise to publish that Sanderson's actions constituted a "deprivation of access to educational programs and services". Using that language is implicative.

I like the technical discussions, but I don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that I'm certainly not defending Sanderson's actions, or questioning Ms. Just's account of events. I hope my boring, academic takes on the handling of this don't take away from my overall view of what is right and wrong.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm not quite sure what PR and CDA mean by "jurisdiction." The Duke always told us "jurisdiction is power," and I think MSU had the power and authority to investigate Just's claims whether that was under Title IX or otherwise.

I also don't share their concerns that MSU conducted the investigation under Title IX. In my mind MSU should be more concerned with OCR dinging them for not conducting the investigation under Title IX, than they should be with setting any precedent that they will investigate these cases in this matter.

CDA does raise an interesting point with regard to only MSU being able to violate Title IX, but then mirroring their language of what Sanderson did to the language found in Title IX. As noted we don't have the benefit of the actual report, but I agree that the language of the report for Sanderson should just mirror the statute's language and not state Sanderson violated Title IX, or MSU could have some problems. But since Sanderson was not an employee his actions can't be imputed to MSU under an agency theory, I don't know if it is a concern that the finding just followed the language in the statue, since the issue has now been resolved with him moving/MSU banning him (if they did so).

I also haven't read what CDA provided with regard to Just not having standing, but at first blush I don't think I agree with that. If Just had applied to go to school at MSU but they denied her admittance because she's female, I don't think her claim would be dismissed merely because she wasn't a student or employee. The statute itself says "No person" will be denied etc. When I have more time I'll try to look into this further.

It is interesting though. I had never thought of Title IX falling under a situation where employees/students were not involved, but after thinking about his case I think it does. But I could be wrong. In any event I'm enjoying the discussion as well.

Click to expand...