The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's ruling in a Title IX case involving allegations of sexual abuse at Eastern New Mexico University (ENMU). The court's decision affects three plaintiffs, known as Jane Does 1, 2, and 3, who were members of the ENMU women’s basketball team. The ruling is significant as it allows their claims against the university to proceed, highlighting the university's potential liability for failing to protect its students from sexual harassment.
The case, filed under docket number 25-2044, centers on allegations that ENMU was deliberately indifferent to sexual abuse committed by Glen de los Reyes, who was not an official employee of the university but was involved with the basketball team through his wife, Meghan de los Reyes, the team's head coach. The ruling emphasizes the university's responsibility to ensure the safety of its students in the face of known risks.
The plaintiffs, Jane Does 1, 2, and 3, filed their lawsuit against the ENMU Board of Regents, along with other defendants, including Glen de los Reyes and his wife Meghan. They claimed that the university violated Title IX by failing to address the sexual harassment they experienced. The case reached the Tenth Circuit after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of ENMU, concluding that the university did not have sufficient control over Glen to be held liable.
The Tenth Circuit, however, disagreed with the lower court's assessment. The court found that while there was no evidence of an official policy of deliberate indifference at ENMU, the university did have sufficient control over Glen and the circumstances surrounding the harassment for the claims to proceed. The ruling stated, "Although there is no evidence of an actual policy of deliberate indifference, ENMU did have sufficient control over Glen and the situation under which the harassment occurred for the claims to proceed." This decision was made by Circuit Judge Ebel, along with Judges Bacharach and Kelly.
The ruling has significant implications for the future of Title IX cases, particularly in how courts interpret the concept of control in relation to third-party harassment. The Tenth Circuit's decision suggests that universities may be held liable for the actions of individuals who are not formal employees but who nonetheless have a significant influence over student-athletes. This could set a precedent for other cases involving similar circumstances, where the lines of authority and responsibility are blurred.
Going forward, the ruling means that the Jane Does can continue to pursue their claims against ENMU. The court's decision to reverse the summary judgment allows for further proceedings in the lower court, where the plaintiffs can present their case. This case could lead to a greater understanding of a university's obligations under Title IX, particularly regarding the protection of students from sexual harassment.
As for what’s next, the case will return to the district court for further proceedings. It remains to be seen whether ENMU will seek to appeal the Tenth Circuit's ruling, but for now, the plaintiffs have the opportunity to advance their claims in court. The outcome of this case could have lasting effects on how universities address and manage allegations of sexual misconduct, particularly in athletic programs.