In a significant legal decision, an en banc federal appeals court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco, voted 8-3 on Monday to allow a University of Arizona student, Mackenzie Brown, to pursue a lawsuit against her assailant, a football player named Orlando Bradford, for an alleged Title IX violation.
Evidence of Deliberate Indifference
The court’s ruling hinged on evidence suggesting that the university had shown “deliberate indifference” towards prior reports of abuse involving two other students, thereby allowing Mackenzie Brown to sue for off-campus assaults.
University’s Control Over Off-Campus Housing
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the university had substantial control over the off-campus housing where the incidents occurred, as it possessed the authority to revoke the football player’s permission to reside there. The university’s code of conduct also extended beyond campus boundaries and included specific conduct rules for football players.
Orlando Bradford’s Criminal Conviction
Orlando Bradford, the football player in question, had previously pleaded guilty to felony aggravated assault and domestic violence related to his attacks on Mackenzie Brown and one of the prior students. As a result, he was sentenced to five years in prison in November 2017.
Don’t miss out on exciting legal job openings – sign up for LawCrossing today.
Details of Mackenzie Brown’s Allegations
Mackenzie Brown alleged that she had been assaulted by Bradford between four and ten times in 2016, with the final two incidents being particularly violent. In one of these incidents, Brown claimed that Bradford hit her head against a cupboard, dragged her by her hair to the stairs, choked her on the staircase, and continued to assault her in his room physically. During another assault, Brown sought medical attention, and the doctor’s examination revealed burst blood vessels in her eye, signs of a likely concussion, neck pain from strangulation, hitting, and kicking, “intractable acute post-traumatic headache,” and visible bruising.
Key Findings of the Appeals Court
Looking at the evidence in the most favorable light for Brown, the appeals court found that:
- The university exercised substantial control over off-campus housing due to the conditions attached to Bradford’s permission to live there. Furthermore, the university’s code of conduct applied both on and off-campus, with specific rules for football players.
- A softball coach, a deputy Title IX coordinator for athletics, knew about Bradford’s assaults on two previous women the prior year. One of these women had obtained an order of protection against Bradford. However, the university’s athletic director and Bradford’s football coaches were unaware of these assaults.
- The university’s response to the prior reports of assaults, led by the softball coach, was deemed unreasonable, leading to a finding of “deliberate indifference.”
Significance of the Decision
Alexandra Brodsky, a staff attorney at Public Justice, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, lauded the 9th Circuit’s decision, describing it as “a sweeping victory for student survivors across the country.” Brodsky emphasized the grave impact of gender violence on students’ access to education and reiterated that Title IX mandates schools to address known instances of abuse, regardless of whether they occur within the campus boundaries. The ruling reaffirms that a university’s responsibility to prevent violence extends beyond the confines of the campus.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
.