A federal court in South Carolina recently granted a university’s motion to compel arbitration of a case involving a former student’s claim arising from his suspension after being accused of sexual harassment and stalking.
The plaintiff was a former student at the South Carolina campus of a for-profit university. He alleged that another student falsely represented that he had stalked and sexually harassed her. He further alleged he was dismissed from the university’s Licensed Practical Nursing program for a semester in March 17, 2023 without a Title IX investigation or hearing. The plaintiff alleged the complainant’s allegations were found to be false, but she was not disciplined.
The plaintiff claimed there was “a hostile educational environment” when he went back to school after the suspension. He also alleged that a member of the university’s administration was aware that another student had threatened his life but allowed the student to remain in the program without reprimand.
The plaintiff complained to the Department of Veterans Education and Training benefits regarding his experiences with the university. The defendants conduct a Judiciary Review Board the next day without the plaintiff present and suspended him.
The plaintiff filed suit on a number of claims, including gender-based harassment in violation of Title IX.
The defendants moved to compel arbitration. They attached copies of an “Enrollment Agreement” and an “Arbitration Agreement and Waiver of Jury Trial,” allegedly electronically signed by the plaintiff. The Enrollment Agreement stated the plaintiff agreed to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement and Waiver of Jury Trial and that he agreed to resolve disputes through binding arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement. The Arbitration Agreement provided that any dispute either party brought against the other would be resolved by binding arbitration in the city where the campus was located. The Arbitration Agreement further provided it was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
The plaintiff argued that he was not required to arbitrate the claims due to the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (“EFAA”). He also argued unconscionability under state law. He argued the defendants had waived their right to arbitration. Additionally, he argued his statutory rights should be decided by a court.
EFFA
The FAA generally favors arbitration. A party seeking to compel arbitration in the Fourth Circuit must show that: there is a dispute between the parties, a written agreement to arbitrate purports to cover the dispute, the transaction is related to interstate or foreign commerce, and a party has failed to arbitrate the dispute. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. v. Wood.
The court concluded there was a dispute between the parties established in the plaintiff’s complaint. There was also a written arbitration agreement that required the plaintiff to arbitrate any dispute between the parties. The court concluded the transaction was related to interstate commerce, stating in a footnote the university was organized and had a principal state of business in Virginia and had campuses in multiple states. Finally, the court noted the plaintiff’s refusal to arbitrate was evidence by the lawsuit and his opposition to the defendant’s arbitration.
The EFAA provides that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement is valid or enforceable with respect to a case relating to a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute, at the election of the person alleging the conduct. The court noted that the EFAA applies to victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault and not to a plaintiff who did not personally experience or report it. Additionally, a “sexual harassment dispute” under the EFAA must be able to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
The court concluded the plaintiff’s amended complaint “fail[ed] to state a viable sexual harassment claim. . . .” For a Title IX sexual harassment claim, the plaintiff must allege that the school receives federal funds, that the plaintiff was the subject of sex-based harassment, that the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment, and liability could be imputed to the school. See Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley. The court determined the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged any action against him based on his sex. He alleged the treatment he received was based on a perception he had harassed and stalked another student and rumors he had been sexually involved with a staff member. The court therefore concluded the EFAA did not bar arbitration in this case.
Unconscionability
The plaintiff argued the agreement was unconscionable because it was hidden in “boilerplate enrollment documents” and he was not given an opportunity to negotiate. He also argued it significantly favored the university and did not “assure due process, transparency, or parity of forum.”
The court noted that contracts of adhesion are not necessarily unconscionable pursuant to South Carolina law. The court pointed out the question in determining if an arbitration agreement is unconscionable is whether it is aimed at reaching “an unbiased decision by a neutral decision-maker.” Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc.
The court concluded the Arbitration Agreement was not unconscionable. It disagreed with the plaintiff that the agreement was buried in an enrollment document, pointing out it was a separate document with a clear title. Furthermore, it required the plaintiff to initial each provision. The court also determined it did not impose oppressive terms on the plaintiff. It provided arbitration would be according to the Consumer Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Agreement, which the court had stated in a previous case ensured protection of a plaintiff’s rights. The agreement also provided that the same remedies would be available in arbitration that were available in court. The court concluded the Arbitration Agreement did not deprive him of a remedy but instead determined the forum.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument the defendants had waived their right to arbitrate, determining that the defendants’ efforts had been related to enforcing the Arbitration Agreement.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument his statutory rights should be determined in a judicial forum. The Supreme Court held a claim under the Agre Discrimination in Employment Act could be arbitrated, noting a party should generally be held to an arbitration agreement unless there is a legislative intent not to allow waiver of judicial remedies. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
The plaintiff did not identify any language in Title IX supporting his argument that compelling arbitration would undermine the objectives of Title IX. The court also pointed out that other courts have held that Title IX claims were subject to arbitration.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case because all of the plaintiff’s claims were within the Arbitration Agreement’s scope.
Seek Legal Advice
If you have been accused of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct at school, you should contact a skilled Washington Title IX defense attorney. While not all colleges and universities require an arbitration agreement, this case illustrates that paperwork signed during enrollment can have a significant impact on a student’s rights, especially at a for-profit institute. Call Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562.