Opinion ID: 6112413
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: University Control Over the “Context” in Which

Text: Bradford Assaulted Brown The University does not argue that it was unaware of Bradford’s assaults on Student A and DeGroote, or that it had no control over the “context” of those assaults. Rather, it argues that it had no control over the context of Bradford’s assaults on Brown. Brown argues that because the University had control over the context of Bradford’s known harassment of Student A and DeGroote, the University’s failure to take action violates Title IX without respect to whether the University had control over Bradford’s offcampus housing. That is, Brown argues that because the University had control over the context of Bradford’s assaults on Student A and DeGroote, it necessarily had control over the context of Bradford’s subsequent assaults on other university students including Brown, regardless of where in the community the assaults took place. I would not go so far, and the facts of this case do not require me to do so. It is clear, on the facts of this case, that the University had control over the “context” in which Bradford assaulted Brown. Bradford was subject to Player Rules specific to football players. The Player Rules required all freshmen team members to live in university dorms. Bradford flouted the rules during his freshman year. On most nights from January to early April 2016, he stayed at DeGroote’s off-campus house. After he was assigned to a different dorm from Student A in mid-April, Bradford moved off campus entirely, into a house shared with another football player. 42 BROWN V. STATE OF ARIZONA Had university officials or football staff members chosen to investigate, they could have enforced those Rules, requiring Bradford to live in university dorms during the entirety of his freshman year. More important, and directly relevant to Brown’s claim under Title IX, after he finished his freshman year, Bradford moved into another off-campus house with other members of the football team. The University paid for that off-campus housing and allowed Bradford to live off campus only with the permission of his coaches and on condition of good behavior. Head coach Rodriguez specifically testified in his deposition that Player Rule 15 required permission to live off campus and that permission was conditioned on good behavior. Rodriguez testified in his deposition that the football team had a zero-tolerance policy for violence against women. He testified that a player’s violence against women would lead to immediate dismissal from the team. Rodriguez testified that the “first time” he heard about Bradford “doing anything physically violent to his girlfriend” was the day he kicked him off of the team. Rodriguez said that if he had known earlier, he “certainly would have kicked him off earlier.” Had University Title IX officials informed Rodriguez of Bradford’s assaults on Student A and DeGroote during his freshman year, Bradford would never have been permitted to live off campus, and his September 12 and 13 assaults on Brown at his off-campus house would never have occurred. Brown submitted an expert report to the district court. The expert concluded that in failing to inform head coach Rodriguez of the assaults on Student A and DeGroote, the University failed to fulfill its responsibilities under Title IX. Among other things, the expert wrote that the University had BROWN V. STATE OF ARIZONA 43 virtually complete control over Bradford, including control over where he lived: Student-athletes, especially those at large Division I “Power 5” conference schools, are very much under the control of the University. They are told where they can live, where and when they will be places— including practices, games, housing, meals, and study time. They are given clear expectations for behavior when not in school or at practice, and they are certainly under the financial control of the University and the Athletics department. Having worked with and trained thousands of coaches and athletes at all levels from high school to college to Olympians, I can state unequivocally that any belief that UA [the University of Arizona] has no control over Bradford is misplaced and uninformed. University administrators knew about the September 2015 fight between Bradford and Student A in the dorm study room; knew that Bradford had been abusing Student A, including choking her three times; knew that Student A had a black eye and finger marks on her neck in March 2016; knew that Student A wanted a court-issued protective order against Bradford in April 2016; knew that the University had issued a no-contact order to Bradford; and knew about reports that Bradford lived with and frequently hit DeGroote. They never told Athletic Director Byrne or head coach Rodriguez any of this. The district judge ruled against Brown on the ground that she failed to “allege that any of her abuse occurred on 44 BROWN V. STATE OF ARIZONA campus or in any other setting under Defendant’s control,” and that Brown had not “offered any evidence that Defendants exercised control over the context in which her abuse occurred.” The district judge was mistaken. Brown both alleged and introduced evidence that the University had substantial control over the “context” in which Bradford assaulted her on September 12 and 13. She introduced Player Rule 15, which allowed Bradford to live off campus only with permission of his coaches; she introduced evidence that Bradford had a football scholarship that paid his living expenses; she introduced Rodriguez’s testimony that Bradford’s permission to live off campus was conditioned on good behavior; she introduced Rodriguez’s testimony that if he had known of his assaults on Student A and DeGroote he would have thrown Bradford off the team, with the result that he would have lost his scholarship and been expelled from the University; and she introduced expert evidence, consistent with Rodriguez’s testimony, that the University had extensive control over Bradford, including control over where he could live. In her response to the University’s motion for summary judgment, Brown specifically pointed out to the district judge the University’s control over where Bradford lived. She wrote, “Coach Rodriguez permitted his players to reside off-campus only on good behavior, ‘subject to moving back on campus’ if more supervision was required but, as discussed above, he was kept out of the loop.” Pl.’s Resp. to State Def’s Mot. for Summ. J., at 8. Brown thus produced extensive evidence that Bradford’s violent assaults on September 12 and 13 were in a “context” over which the University exercised substantial control. The University not only “exercise[d] significant control over the BROWN V. STATE OF ARIZONA 45 harasser,” but also over the “context” in which the harassment took place. Davis, 526 U.S. at 645, 646.