# data[].attributes.body
1. Establish a comprehensive Title IX policy: Universities should have a comprehensive policy that prohibits sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and other forms of sexual misconduct, and that outlines the university's procedures for responding to and investigating reports of sexual harassment.

2. Designate a Title IX Coordinator: Universities should designate a full-time Title IX Coordinator who is responsible for overseeing Title IX compliance and investigations. The Coordinator should have specialized training in Title IX compliance and investigations, and should be able to provide education and training to students, faculty, and staff on Title IX issues.

3. Conduct regular Title IX training and education: Universities should provide regular Title IX training and education to all members of the university community, including students, faculty, and staff. The training should cover the university's Title IX policy and procedures, how to identify and report incidents of sexual harassment, and how to support survivors of sexual harassment.

4. Ensure prompt and effective response to reports of sexual harassment: Universities should have procedures in place for responding promptly and effectively to reports of sexual harassment. This should include conducting investigations that are fair, impartial, and thorough, and providing support to survivors of sexual harassment.

5. Ensure confidentiality and privacy: Universities should ensure that all reports of sexual harassment are treated with confidentiality and privacy, to the extent possible. This includes maintaining the confidentiality of the reporting individual and the alleged perpetrator, and limiting the number of people who have access to information about the investigation.

6. Monitor and evaluate Title IX compliance: Universities should regularly monitor and evaluate their Title IX compliance efforts to ensure that they are effective and that they are meeting legal requirements. This includes reviewing and updating Title IX policies and procedures, tracking and reporting incidents of sexual harassment, and assessing the effectiveness of Title IX training and education.

7. Foster a culture of respect and accountability: Universities should foster a culture of respect and accountability, in which all members of the university community are expected to treat others with respect and to be accountable for their actions. This can include promoting bystander intervention and providing support to survivors of sexual harassment, as well as holding individuals who engage in sexual harassment accountable for their actions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #10- Personal Connection to Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #10- Personal Connection to Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.body
As I mentioned prior, I am a mandatory reporter regarding Title IX issues in my current role at ASU. The context of this assignment and course allowed me to understand the application of the law and how it applies to those in roles similar to mine in higher education. Title IX compliance is critical and it's important for mandatory reporters to be honest and forthcoming with information they may have regarding a Title IX violation on campus. The ASU RamFam is a community that seeks to look out for one another and keep each other safe, and mandatory reporting is a crucial aspect of this. I look forward to learning more about Title IX and what I can do to help keep others in my department accountable to reporting any issues they are aware of.

# data[].attributes.body
Angelo State University Code of Ethics

Link: Code of Ethics · Angelo State University

Ethical Code Item:

Respect the basic dignity of others by treating them as one would wish to be treated

Connection to Topic:
This ethical code item relates to Title IX issues as it speaks to one's character. The code item is asking for individuals to respect the dignity of others with the preface of treating others as they would like to be treated, the "Golden Rule". Many Title IX issues come from unsolicited behavior and this ethical code item is definitely not being thought of when these violations occur.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Students, faculty, administrators and professional staff of the Norris-Vincent College of Business should always:

Be forthright and truthful in dealings with all stakeholders

Take responsibility for one's actions and decisions

Serve as an example of ethical decision-making and behavior to others

Admit errors when they occur, without trying to conceal them

Respect the basic dignity of others by treating them as one would wish to be treated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students, faculty, administrators and professional staff of the Norris-Vincent College of Business should always: Be forthright and truthful in dealings with all stakeholders Take responsibility for one's actions and decisions Serve as an example of ethical decision-making and behavior to others Admit errors when they occur, without trying to conceal them Respect the basic dignity of others by treating them as one would wish to be treated

# data[].attributes.body
There are several risk management steps that can be implemented to ensure the best possible enforcement of Title IX on a college or university campus:

Designate one full time Title IX Coordinator responsible for training students and employees regarding Title IX compliance and investigations

Implement mandatory Title IX training for all students and employees

Improve and expand Title IX communication including standards, prohibitions, events, etc.

Improve reporting methods for Title IX violations confidentially (National Law Review, 2023).

Why are these important?

Compliance- Designating a full time Title IX Coordinator helps ensure the university is complying with the law and fulfilling its obligations.

Consistency and Coordination- The university its efforts to prevent and respond to sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination.

Expertise and Training- The university can ensure its community members receive accurate information about Title IX and their rights and responsibilities.

Accountability- If the university fails to comply with the law or mishandles a Title IX investigation, the Title IX Coordinator would be held responsible for these actions.

References:

Title IX: College and University Risk Management. (2023). The National Law Review. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/title-ix-college-and-university-risk-management

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #7- Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #7- Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.body
Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule: Resolution 2020-08

During the height of the COVID pandemic, the city of Issaquah, Washington provided resolution policy to the city council (Resolution No. 2020-08) in which they rejected racially based bias, discrimination, harassment, and hate crimes due to COVID-19 and committed the city to providing an inclusive and respectable community to overcome all expressions of hate and bigotry to those of other races (MRSC, 2023). The city urged community members to report incidents or violations to the Washington State Human Rights Commission. This policy impacts the topic of Title IX issues as it relates to fighting against discrimination and harassment.

Link to full text of law: RESOLUTION NO (mrsc.org)

# data[].attributes.body
Federal Regulation/Mandate-
According to the Office of Civil Rights (2022), all federal agencies that provide grants of financial assistance are required to enforce Title IX’s nondiscrimination mandate which states “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”. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), sex (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), disability (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), and age (Age Discrimination Act of 1975)

Link to full text of law: ED/OCR: Notice of Non-Discrimination (2010).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ARCHIVED AND NOT FOR RELIANCE. This document has not been updated to reflect 2020 amendments to the Department's regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. 85 FR 30026 (May 19, 2020)

U.S. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
Washington, D.C. 20202-1100
August 2010

Introduction

The Department of Education's (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces several statutes that protect the rights of beneficiaries in programs or activities that receive financial assistance from ED. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), sex (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), disability ( Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), and age ( Age Discrimination Act of 1975). OCR also has enforcement responsibilities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits state and local governments from discriminating on the basis of disability. In addition, OCR enforces the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, which addresses equal access to meet on school premises or in school facilities for the Boy Scouts of America and other designated youth groups.

This fact sheet explains the requirements for schools, colleges, and state and local governments that receive federal funds to issue notices of non-discrimination, clarifies the information that they should include in their non-discrimination notices, and provides a sample notice of non-discrimination. This fact sheet is designed to assist education institutions in establishing a notice of non-discrimination that meets the requirements of the applicable regulations.

Notice of Non-discrimination Requirements

The regulations implementing Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, the Age Discrimination Act, and the Boy Scouts Act contain requirements for recipients to issue notices of non-discrimination. (See 34 C.F.R. Sections 100.6(d), 106.9, 104.8, 110.25, and 108.9, respectively.) The Title II regulation also contains a notice requirement that applies to all entities of state or local government, whether or not they receive federal financial assistance. (See 28 C.F.R. Section 35.106.)

These regulations require that recipients notify students, parents and others that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age, and, if applicable, that they provide equal access to the Boy Scouts of America and other designated youth groups. However, these regulations contain minor differences relating to the required content of recipient notices of non-discrimination and the methods used to publish them.

The Title VI regulation requires schools and colleges to notify students and others of the regulatory provisions in a manner that a responsible ED official would find necessary to tell students of their protections against discrimination under the statute and regulation.

The Boy Scouts Act regulation incorporates the Title VI regulatory provision concerning notice of non-discrimination. Public elementary and secondary schools and local and state educational agencies that receive funds made available through ED must make available information regarding the provisions of the Boy Scouts Act. This information must be made available in a manner that a responsible ED official would find necessary to inform people of the protections provided under the Boy Scouts Act and its regulation. Entities other than public elementary and secondary schools and local and state educational agencies that receive funds made available through ED need not provide this notice, as the Boy Scouts Act does not apply to them.

The Title IX and the Section 504 regulations both contain more detailed requirements that specify the information that must be included in a notice of non-discrimination. These regulations also require recipients to designate at least one employee to coordinate efforts to comply with and carry out responsibilities.

The Title IX regulation requires schools and colleges to implement specific and continuing steps to inform students and others of the protections against discrimination on the basis of sex. The notification must state that the requirement of non-discrimination in educational programs and activities extends to employment and admission. It also must say that questions about Title IX may be referred to the employee designated to coordinate Title IX compliance or to the assistant secretary for civil rights. Schools are required to include the name, address, and telephone number of the designated coordinator in their notifications.

The Section 504 regulation requires that schools and colleges employing 15 or more persons implement appropriate, continuing steps to notify students and others that the school does not discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of the statute and regulation. The notification must state, where appropriate, that the school or college does not discriminate in admission, treatment, or access to its programs or activities. The notification also must state that the school or college does not discriminate in employment in its programs or activities. The employee designated to coordinate compliance with the Section 504 regulation must be identified in the notification.

The Title II regulation requires that a public entity generally make information regarding the provisions of Title II available to applicants, participants and other interested persons in such a manner as the head of the entity finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The regulation implementing the Age Discrimination Act requires a school or college to notify its students and applicants, in a continuing manner, of information regarding the provisions of the act and these regulations. The notice must identify the compliance coordinator by name or title, address, and telephone number.

Methods of Notification

In accordance with the Title IX and Section 504 regulations, notification may include posting information notices, publishing in local newspapers, publishing in newspapers and magazines operated by the school or its students, publishing in alumnae or alumni newspapers or magazines, or distributing memoranda or other written communications to students and employees. In addition, recipients are required to include a statement of nondiscriminatory policy in any bulletins, announcements, publications, catalogs, application forms, or other recruitment materials that are made available to participants, students, applicants, or employees. As noted in the pertinent Section 504 regulatory provision, schools may meet this requirement either by including appropriate inserts in existing materials and publications or by revising and reprinting the materials and publications.

Neither the Title VI regulation, the Boy Scouts Act regulation, the Age Discrimination Act regulation, nor the Title II regulation specifies the methods to be used by recipients in publishing notices of non-discrimination.

Combined Requirements

OCR recognizes the variations among the regulations governing notice requirements and understands that schools and colleges may wish to use one statement to comply with all requirements of the regulations implementing Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, the Age Discrimination Act, and, if applicable, the Boy Scouts Act. Public institutions also may wish to include Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act in their statement. OCR encourages one combined notice for the regulations.

A combined non-discrimination notice should contain two basic elements: (1) a statement of non-discrimination that specifies the basis for non-discrimination; and (2) identification by name or title, address, and telephone number of the employee or employees responsible for coordinating the compliance efforts.

The regulations do not require that a recipient identify the pertinent regulations by title. Please see the sample notice at the end of this pamphlet.

The Title IX regulation requires a recipient to provide the name of the person responsible for its compliance effort in addition to the address and telephone number where that person may be contacted. However, because OCR recognizes that the inclusion of a person's name in a non-discrimination notice may result in an overly burdensome requirement to republish the notice if a person leaves the coordinator position, it is acceptable for a recipient to identify its coordinator only through a position title.

The Section 504 regulation does not require a recipient to include the address or telephone number of the responsible employee assigned to coordinate its compliance efforts. However, OCR considers that identifying the responsible employee without information on how to contact that person does not constitute an effective notice. An acceptable non-discrimination notice should provide information on how to contact the responsible employee.

Compliance with the notification requirements of Section 504 will also generally satisfy the notification requirements of Title II for state and local governments.

Although the Section 504 and Title IX regulations state that schools and colleges, where appropriate, shall specify non-discrimination in the areas of admission and employment, a general statement indicating non-discrimination in all programs is acceptable.

The Title IX regulation indicates that inquiries concerning the application of the Title IX regulation may be referred to the coordinator or to the assistant secretary for civil rights. An acceptable notice may include the names and titles of either one or both individuals.

However, since the Section 504 regulation requires identification of a coordinator, a combined non-discrimination notice should include the name and/or title of the responsible employee. If a recipient designates two different people to coordinate compliance with Section 504 and Title IX, both names or titles should be included in the notice.

Sample Notice of Non-discrimination

The following sample notice of non-discrimination meets the minimum requirements of the regulations enforced by OCR:

The (Name of Recipient) does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age in its programs and activities and provides equal access to the Boy Scouts and other designated youth groups. The following person has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the non-discrimination policies:

For further information on notice of non-discrimination, visit https://ocrcas.ed.gov/contact-ocr for the address and phone number of the office that serves your area, or call 1-800-421-3481.

Only public elementary or secondary schools or local or state educational agencies that receive funds made available through the Department of Education should include the words "and provides equal access to the Boy Scouts and other designated youth groups."

For use when more than one official has been designated to coordinate civil rights compliance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
civil rights; laws; education; students;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ED/OCR: Notice of Non-Discrimination (2010).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Washington, D.C. 20202-1100 August 2010 The Department of Education's (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces several statutes that protect the rights of beneficiaries in programs or activities that receive financial assistance from ED.

# data[].attributes.body
Common/Case Law- Gruver v Louisiana Board of Supervisors (Civil Action 18-772-SDD-EWD, 401 F.Supp.3d 742 (2019)

Link to full text of law: United States District Court M D Louisiana Opinions and Cases | FindLaw

Gruver v Louisiana Board of Supervisors is a federal court case that involves a college student who died as a result of hazing activities at Louisiana State University.

The case resulted in a settlement that required Louisiana State University to make changes to its policies and procedures related to hazing and alcohol use.

Under the settlement agreement, Louisiana State University is required to conduct an annual review of its hazing prevention policies and procedures, and to make any necessary changes to ensure that they are effective in preventing hazing.

The university is also required to provide education and training on hazing prevention to all students, faculty, and staff.

The settlement agreement requires Louisiana State University to establish a hazing hotline and to provide amnesty to students who report hazing activities.

The university is required to implement a system for tracking and reporting hazing incidents, and to provide regular reports to the court on its efforts to prevent hazing.

The settlement agreement requires the university to establish a memorial scholarship in honor of the student who died as a result of hazing.

Louisiana State University is required to pay a monetary settlement to the student's family as part of the agreement.

The settlement agreement serves as a reminder to educational institutions of the importance of taking proactive steps to prevent hazing and to ensure the safety and well-being of all students.

References:

FindLaw’s United States District Court M D Louisiana case and opinions. (n.d.). Findlaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-m-d-lou/2187674.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Stephen M. GRUVER and Rae Ann Gruver, individually and on behalf of Maxwell R. Gruver, deceased v. State of LOUISIANA THROUGH the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, et al.

CIVIL ACTION 18-772-SDD-EWD

Decided: February 02, 2023
Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr., John Lane Ewing, Jr., Cazayoux Ewing, LLC, Baton Rouge, LA, Chloe M. Neely, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathon N. Fazzola, Pro Hac Vice, Lisa N. Cloutier, Pro Hac Vice, The Fierberg National Law Group, PLLC, Traverse City, MI, Douglas E. Frierberg, Pro Hac Vice, Traverse City, MI, for Stephen M. Gruver, Rae Ann Gruver. Michael Adams Fiser, The Fiser Law Firm, LLC, Baton Rouge, LA, for Ryan M. Isto. P. M. Donovan, Donovan & Lawler, Metairie, LA, for Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, Inc.
RULING

I. BACKGROUND FACTS 4

Prior to naming Allstate Canada as a Defendant in the action, Plaintiffs entered into a Gasquet agreement with Isto and State Farm through a Policy which insured Isto. This released Isto and State Farm from personal liability, leaving Isto as a "nominal defendant" for the purposes of pursuing recovery from Allstate Canada as an additional or excess insurer. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding Allstate Canada as a defendant pursuant to the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, as an insurer of Isto. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Allstate Canada is a foreign corporation, incorporated under the laws of Canada, and having its principal place of business in Canada.

II. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Summary Judgment Standard

The fact that one party fails to satisfy that burden on his own Rule 56 motion does not automatically indicate that the opposing party has satisfied its burden and should be granted summary judgment on the other motion. The court must rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, for each side, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the Rule 56 standard. Both motions must be denied if the court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact. But if there is no genuine dispute and one or the other party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law, the court will render judgment.26

With these standards in mind, the Court turns to each individual motion.

B. Local Rule Requirements

As Plaintiffs note, Allstate Canada failed to comply with the Local Rules of the Middle District of Louisiana in submitting its Statement of Undisputed Facts. Local Rule 56(f) provides:

Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted. An assertion of fact set forth in a statement of material facts shall be followed by a citation to the specific page or paragraph of identified record material supporting the assertion. The court may disregard any statement of fact not supported by a specific citation to record material properly considered on summary judgment. The court shall have no independent duty to search or consider any part of the record not specifically referenced in the parties' separate statement of facts. (emphasis added).

Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Allstate Canada likewise failed to comply with: (1) Local Rule 7(f) of the Middle District of Louisiana, which requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion, and (2) Local Rule 56 (c), which requires an opposing party to:

submit with its opposition a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts. The opposing statement shall admit, deny or qualify the facts by reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts and unless a fact is admitted, shall support each denial or qualification by a record citation as required by this rule. Each such statement shall begin with the designation "Admitted," "Denied," or "Qualified" and, in the case of an admission, shall end with such designation. The opposing statement may contain in a separately titled section additional facts, each set forth in a separately numbered paragraph and supported by a record citation as required by subsection (f) of this rule.

As to Allstate Canada's motion, another section of this Court explained in Braud v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. that "case law recognizes that the Court can still consider record evidence to determine if there is a factual dispute." To the extent Allstate Canada directed the Court, in its memorandum in support of its motion, to specific, summary judgment evidence to support an offered fact, the Court will consider same. However, for purposes of Plaintiffs' motion, Allstate Canada has entirely failed to oppose Plaintiffs' motion or to offer countervailing summary judgment evidence to demonstrate genuine disputes of fact; thus, for purposes of Plaintiffs' motion, Plaintiffs' offered statements of undisputed fact are deemed admitted.

C. Allstate Canada's Motion - Facts

Isto admitted that the purpose of his participation in the "lineup" and "Bible Study" was to haze the pledges. Isto arrived at the house at approximately 10:20 p.m. for Bible Study. He went upstairs where the "lineup" was already taking place. The pledges were standing in a dark hallway with their noses against the wall. Loud music was playing, strobe lights were on, and the pledges were drinking. The pledges were ordered to assume the "wall sit" position where they would press their backs against one wall and brace their legs against the other. Members of the fraternity would then walk across the pledge's legs with the express purpose of inflicting pain.

Isto admitted to handling the bottles of alcohol that were given to the pledges. One brand of liquor being consumed was Diesel, a 190-proof grain alcohol, and Isto brought a bottle of Captain Morgan rum that the pledges were required to drink. Isto admitted that pledges were "forced" or "required" to consume the alcohol; that he participated in this hazing; that he knew it was illegal; and that he knew someone could be killed or harmed as a result. Isto further admitted that, after the conclusion of the "Bible Study," Max appeared to be the most intoxicated of the participating pledges.

Allstate Canada contends its Policy excludes coverage for bodily injury caused by the intentional and/or criminal actions of its insureds. It also excludes coverage for bodily injury caused by the physical, psychological or emotional abuse or harassment occasioned by an insured person as well as any bodily injury that arises from an insured person's failure to prevent such physical, psychological or emotional abuse from occurring.

Plaintiffs filed an Opposition accompanied by an Opposing Statement of Material Facts, denying or qualifying most of the purported facts offered by Allstate Canada. Plaintiffs take issue with Allstate Canada quoting allegations from the original Complaint, since the Second Amended Complaint controls. Citing record evidence, Plaintiffs claim Isto never asked or told Max to drink alcohol during the Bible Study because he did not know Max well enough and did not feel comfortable asking him to drink. Isto never gave Max alcohol on September 13-14, 2017, and he never told any of the other Phi Delt members at the September 13, 2017 Bible Study to make Max drink alcohol. Isto observed the Greek alphabet phase of the Bible Study, but he did not direct Max to drink alcohol during that phase, or any other time during Bible Study. Plaintiffs also contend Isto did not admit to requiring Max to do wall sits or wear a garbage bag during Bible Study. Isto specifically denied directing the pledges to assume the position of a wall sit, and he testified that he did not know who tied the garbage bag around Max's neck or why a garbage bag was tied around Max's neck.

Allstate Canada did not submit a reply statement of material facts specifically addressing the offered facts in Plaintiffs' controverting statement. As to Allstate Canada's motion, the Court finds that there are genuinely disputed material facts.

D. Facts Deemed Admitted for Plaintiff's Motion

As discussed above, Allstate Canada failed to respond to Plaintiffs' motion; it did not file a memorandum in opposition controverting Plaintiffs' legal arguments, and it did not file a Statement of Disputed Facts as required by the Local Rules. Allstate Canada's memorandum in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment does not serve as an opposition to Plaintiff's properly supported Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The following facts are unopposed and, thus, deemed admitted.

1. Hazing Incident and Death of Max Gruver

During the last phase of the September 13, 2017 Bible Study, pledges were asked to recite the Greek alphabet. Max was singled out by some Phi Delt members during the Greek alphabet phase of Bible Study. During this phase, Max was forced to take more and longer pulls of Diesel than any other pledge. One Phi Delt member, Matthew Naquin ("Naquin"), directed Max to drink each time he answered a question incorrectly, and he asked Max more questions than he asked the other pledges. During the Greek alphabet phase, Naquin made Max take pulls of Diesel that were often five seconds or longer. Isto observed the Greek alphabet phase of the Bible Study, but he did not direct Max to drink alcohol during that phase or any other time during Bible Study.

Patient was immediately brough via wheelchair into the critical care room where he was placed in a stretcher and CPR was started after we were unable to palpate a pulse. He had no spontaneous respirations and was covered in dark brown emesis. Bag-valve mask ventilation was begun and a large amount of emesis was suctioned from his oropharynx. I attempted to intubate with a mac but was unable to visualize his airway and was needed to continue suctioning large amounts of emesis from his upper airway and vallecula. I was able to intubate him using the glide scope without further complications. He remained in asystole throughout the code. O2 sat rose to 100% after intubation and throughout code. A large amount of emesis was suctioned from the ET tube. He was treated with code medications as found in nursing note. Lab work revealed was significant for profound lactic and metabolic acidosis. Ethanol levels were greater than 460 after being diluted 2 to 1. He was declared dead after resuscitative efforts were deemed futile.114

2. Isto's No Contest Plea to Hazing Charge

On or about September 13, 2017, Ryan Isto, an active member in Phi Delta Theta Fraternity at Louisiana State University, knowingly and intentionally hazed incoming members of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity at Louisiana State University at the Phi Delta Theta house located at 23 Dalrymple Drive. Specifically Ryan Isto participated in a "Bible Study" hazing event where incoming members were placed in a line, asked questions, and made to drink grain alcohol. Ryan Isto asked questions and ordered some incoming members to drink hard alcohol at this event, which was likely to cause bodily danger to the incoming members of Phi Delta Theta who were also students at Louisiana State University.121

3. Isto's Parents and University History

4. The Allstate Canada Policy

The Policy provides that "a student who is enrolled in and actually attends a school, college or university and who is dependent upon the Named Insured or his or spouse for support and maintenance is also insured even if temporarily residing away from the principal residence stated on the Declaration page." Under the Allstate Canada Policy, "You" and "Your" "refers to the Insured." The Allstate Canada Policy defines "Bodily Injury," in pertinent part, as "bodily injury or death." The Allstate Canada Policy defines "Legal Liability" as "responsibility which courts recognize and enforce between persons who sue one another." One of the "Liability Coverages" in the Allstate Canada Policy is "COVERAGE X - Family Liability." The COVERAGE X - Family Liability section of the Allstate Canada Policy states, in pertinent part, the following:

COVERAGE X - Family Liability

We will pay all sums which you become legally liable to pay as compensatory damages because of unintentional Bodily Injury or Property Damage.

The amount of insurance is the maximum amount that we will pay, under one or more Sections of Coverage X, for all compensatory damages in respect of one accident or occurrence.

You are insured for claims made against you arising from:

1. Personal Liability - Legal Liability arising out of your personal actions anywhere in the world.

You are not insured for claims made against you arising from:

(a) the ownership, use or operation of any motorized vehicle, trailer, or watercraft, except those insured in this policy;

(b) damage to property you own, use, occupy or lease;

(c) damage to property in your care, custody or control;

(d) damage to personal property or fixtures as a result of work performed by you or anyone on your behalf;

(e) Bodily Injury to you or to any person residing in your household other than a residence employee.

In his letter, Ross cited three "Policy exclusion[s]" as the basis for Allstate Canada's conclusion that "there is no coverage available to you under your VIP Homeowner's Policy that would require Allstate Canada to either defend you or indemnify you with respect to allegations made against you in the Statement of Claim":

"(9) Bodily Injury or Property Damage caused by any intentional or criminal acts or failure to act by:

1. any person insured by this policy; or

2. any other person at the direction of any person insured by this policy.

(10) a) sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse, molestation or harassment, including corporal punishment by, at the direction of, or with the knowledge or any person insured by this policy; or

(13) punitive or exemplary damages, meaning that part of any award by court which is in excess of compensatory damages and is stated to be punishment to you"

The Policy exclusions cited by Ross are set forth in the Allstate Canada Policy.

5. The Court's July 1, 2020 Order Dismissing Isto

1. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Isto which may be recovered directly against Defendant Isto and/or State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in its capacity as homeowner's insurer for Mark E. Isto and Ann M. Isto (Policy No. 26-BF-2410-6), only, are dismissed, with prejudice, and with each party to bear its own costs; and

2. This Order applies only to Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Isto which may be recovered directly against Defendant Isto or State Farm, in its capacity as homeowner's insurer for Mark E. Isto and Ann M. Isto, only; and

3. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Isto remain active and pending to the to the extent collectible coverage is afforded under any other applicable policy of insurance, including the VIP Homeowner's Policy, Policy No. 151409848, issued by Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, Inc.; and

4. Defendant Isto shall remain in this action as a nominal Defendant to determine his legal liability for Plaintiffs' claims, if any, and to determine the liability, if any, of any other insurers that may provide coverage to, for, or on behalf of Defendant Isto related to Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Isto; and

5. Plaintiffs' claims also remain active and pending against all other Defendants with whom Plaintiffs have not settled.145

6. Plaintiffs' Liability Expert

Although the preceding facts are deemed admitted for purposes of Plaintiffs' motion, the Court cannot grant summary judgment merely because the motion is unopposed. Considering the facts deemed admitted, the Court must still determine whether a movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The primary legal issues presented by the Parties in these cross-motions are: (1) whether the law of Canada or Louisiana applies to the Allstate Canada Insurance Policy at issue, and (2) under the appliable law, whether coverage exclusions apply based on Isto's conduct. Because the legal issues and arguments are the same for both Parties' motions, the Court will address them simultaneously. As stated repeatedly, Allstate Canada has not responded to any legal arguments or jurisprudence offered by Plaintiffs nor has it contradicted the Plaintiffs' statement of undisputed facts.

E. Plaintiffs' Experts

Plaintiffs have offered two experts to oppose Allstate Canada's motion and support their own motion. Plaintiffs correctly note as follows:

The Fifth Circuit has held that where ․ "a party opposing summary judgment fails to present evidence sufficient to make an issue of an expert's conclusions - such as contrary opinion evidence or evidence tending to undermine the expert's credibility - and when 'the trier of fact would not be at liberty to disregard arbitrarily the unequivocal, uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of an expert witness,' expert testimony may form the basis of summary judgment. Watson v. Allstate Tex. Lloyd's, 224 Fed. Appx. 335, 342 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Webster v. Offshore Food Service, Inc., 434 F.2d 1191, 1193-94 (5th Cir. 1970)); see also Dean v. Chrysler Corp., 1994 WL 574188, at *5, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 42225, at *17 (5th Cir. 1994) ("Although opinion testimony is usually evaluated by the factfinder as to credibility of the expert and the weight it should be given, if the only issue is one of the kind on which expert testimony must be presented, and nothing is presented to challenge the affidavit of the expert, summary judgment may be proper.") (citations and quotations omitted).161

As mentioned above, Allstate Canada never deposed either of Plaintiffs' experts, never filed Daubert challenges, and never offered competing evidence to contradict Plaintiffs' experts' opinions at any time, in any manner. Allstate Canada did not move to file a reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to its own motion, and Allstate Canada failed entirely to oppose or respond to Plaintiffs' motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' experts' opinion testimony may, here, form the basis for a summary judgment in Plaintiffs' favor.

F. Coverage Under the Policy

1. Canadian Law Applies to the Interpretation of the Policy

(1) the pertinent contacts of each state to the parties and the transaction, including the place of negotiation, formation, and performance of the contract, the location of the object of the contract, and the place of domicile, habitual residence, or business of the parties;

(2) the nature, type, and purpose of the contract; and

(3) the policies referred to in Article 3515, as well as the policies of facilitating the orderly planning of transactions, of promoting multistate commercial intercourse, and of protecting one party from undue imposition by the other."169

The Policy at issue was formed and issued in Canada. Isto's only connection to Louisiana is the incident and his attendance at LSU. Similar to the facts in Rohr and Abraham, the Parties' ties to Canada are arguably stronger than their ties to Louisiana. The main Policy holders (Isto's parents) are domiciled in Canada. The Gruvers reside outside of Louisiana. Additionally, Allstate Canada conceded previously that Canadian law would govern the Policy, admitting that the business of the insurer was meant to be governed by Canadian law.

Louisiana courts generally take the place where an insurance policy was written as a strong indicator of which law should apply. Although the above cases involve automobile insurance, the same principles apply to a "roaming" policy like the one at issue, which insures from damages caused "anywhere in the world." As set forth above, the Isto Policy covers Isto for damages he causes (subject to exceptions) wherever he resides. Accordingly, the Court finds that Canadian law applies to the interpretation of the Isto Policy.

2. General Coverage Provisions

The focus of Allstate Canada's motion is on the applicability of the exclusions. Allstate Canada presents scant discussion about whether the general terms and definitions in the policy are met for general coverage purposes. Ultimately, Allstate Canada rejects the notion that Isto's conduct was negligent, arguing that "one cannot accidently, or negligently, haze another person." Allstate Canada offers no legal authority for this conclusion. It also never provides the Court with any Canadian jurisprudence or authority to support its motion.

Additionally, Plaintiffs offer the undisputed, unchallenged, and uncontroverted opinions from their medical causation expert in this case, Dr. Stolbach, who concluded, inter alia: (1) "Max died from 'acute ethanol intoxication with aspiration;' " (2) "[t]he treatment of alcohol intoxication is largely supportive and almost always successful. Mr. Gruver would have survived if he had received treatment sooner;" (3) "had someone called 911 in the early morning hours of September 14, 2017, responding emergency medical service providers confronted with a patient in Mr. Gruver's condition more likely than not would have transported him to the hospital and supported his breathing with a bag-valve mask or by intubation (if medically indicated and they were credentialed for that procedure);" and (4) Max's "treatment at Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center was reasonable and appropriate ․ Unfortunately, Mr. Gruver arrived too late to benefit from these interventions."

After reviewing Knutsen's Declarations and the Canadian jurisprudence attached and analyzed by Knutsen, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated through their experts that Isto's conduct would be considered negligent under Canadian law. Inasmuch as Allstate Canada never deposed, challenged, or controverted any of Knutsen's findings, and it did not offer its own expert to support different conclusions, the Court finds that general coverage exists under the unambiguous terms in the Policy after application of Canadian law.

The Court also agrees that Plaintiffs have alleged a claim for general negligence against Isto for his conduct on the night in question, and Dr. Stolbach's conclusions are likewise unchallenged and uncontroverted. This conduct falls squarely within the general terms of the Policy. The Court now turns to the purported exclusions claimed by Allstate Canada.

G. Do The Claimed Exclusions Apply?

Allstate Canada has based its summary judgment motion on two Policy exclusions: (1) an intentional or criminal act exclusion; and (2) an exclusion for claims arising out of sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse, molestation, or harassment. Plaintiffs claim Allstate Canada cannot meet its summary judgment burden because it has waived all exclusion-based defenses, and it has not established with competent legal authority or admissible evidence that there are no genuinely disputed facts regarding Isto's legal liability.

1. Waiver

Plaintiffs are correct that "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) 'requires defendants to plead affirmative defenses with enough specificity or factual particularity to give the plaintiff fair notice of the defense that is being advanced.' " Courts sitting in diversity look to substantive state law to determine what constitutes an affirmative defense. , With a few minor exceptions, Louisiana law defines a policy exclusion as an affirmative defense that must be specifically pled or is waived. "However, failure to plead an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c), unlike under Louisiana law, does not automatically result in waiver. Rather, Rule 8(c) allows the federal trial court discretion 'to determine whether the party against whom the unpleaded affirmative defense has been raised has suffered prejudice or unfair surprise.' "

While the Court is not dismissive of Allstate Canada's failure to comply with Rule 8(c) in pleading the alleged Policy exclusions, Plaintiffs' counsel, Jonathan N. Fazzola ("Fazzola"), attested that he was made aware of Allstate Canada's denial of coverage letter by the Istos' counsel, who sent it to Fazzola via email on February 25, 2020. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not suffered prejudice or unfair surprise.

2. Intentional or Criminal Acts or Failure to Act Exclusion

The first exclusion Allstate Canada relies on excludes from coverage:

(9) Bodily Injury or Property Damage caused by any intentional or criminal acts or failure to act by:

1. any person insured by this policy; or

2. any other person at the direction of any person insured by this policy;196

Plaintiffs point out that the Louisiana Hazing Statue cited by Allstate Canada was not in effect at the time of Max's death; rather, La. R.S. 14.40.8 was enacted after, "and in response to," Max's death. Thus, the definitions found in the current hazing statute cannot be the basis for applying the criminal conduct exclusion for a 2017 incident.

Thus, to successfully prove the application of this exclusion, Plaintiffs argue Allstate Canada must show that:

1. Isto intended to commit an intentional act against Max with the subjective intent to cause Max "Bodily Injury"; Isto in fact committed that intentional act or directed someone else to commit an intentional act against Max; and the intentional act caused Max's death; or

2. Isto intentionally failed to act with an intent to cause Max "Bodily Injury," or directed someone else to intentionally fail to act with the requisite intent, and that intentional failure to act caused Max's death; or

3. Isto committed or directed someone else to commit a criminal act that caused Max's death; or

4. Isto criminally failed to act, or directed someone else to criminally fail to act, and that failure caused Max's death.204

Plaintiffs maintain that there is no record evidence to show that Isto committed an intentional act against Max, or directed anyone else to do so, with the intent to cause him injury or death. While Isto did not stop other Phi Delt members from aggressive behavior during the Bible study, there is no record evidence to demonstrate that he directed them to act in the manner they did towards Max. Likewise, Plaintiffs contend there is no evidence to show that Isto intentionally failed to act or directed others to fail to act with the subjective intent of causing injury or death to Max. Indeed, Plaintiffs submit (and have claimed only) that Isto's conduct was negligent, but there is no evidence to support a conclusion that Isto intended to harm Max through action or inaction, or in directing others to do the same, with the subjective intent of causing Max injury or death.

3. Sexual, Physical, Psychological, or Emotional Abuse Exclusion

Allstate Canada's Policy excludes from coverage "sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse, molestation or harassment, including corporal punishment by, at the direction of, or with the knowledge of any person insured by this policy." Allstate Canada argues, based on the disputed facts it offered, that Isto's conduct meets the definitions of this exclusion.

The Court has reviewed Knutsen's Declarations and his analysis of the Canadian jurisprudence attached thereto. Allstate Canada has submitted no Canadian law to the contrary. The Court finds that Knutsen's legal analysis and conclusions regarding this exclusion are reasonable and supported by legal authority. Accordingly, this exclusion does not apply to deny coverage for Isto's conduct.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.  Rec. Doc. 286.

2.  Rec. Doc. 292.

3.  Rec. Doc. 288.

5.  Plaintiffs raise an issue regarding Allstate Canada's conflicting representations of which policy applies in this matter, the "VIP Tenant Policy," or the "Elite Homeowner Policy." See Rec. Doc. 292, p. 9. Plaintiffs admit the issue of which is the correct policy is immaterial to the cross-motions before the Court because the relevant language policies is identical, and the Court declines to address same. Id.

6.  Rec. Doc. No. 236-2, p. 12.

8.  A "Gasquet" release takes its name from Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 391 So.2d 466 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1980), writ denied 396 So.2d 921 (La. 1981). "[B]y executing a Gasquet release in a settlement agreement, a plaintiff (1) releases the primary insurer entirely, and (2) releases the insured 'from all claims which might be recovered from [the insured] directly,' reserving claims against the insured 'only to the extent that collectible coverage' is afforded by an excess insurance policy. RSUI Indem. Co. v. American States Ins. Co., 127 F.Supp.3d 649, 657 (E.D. La. 2015)(quoting Gasquet, 391 So.2d at 470-71 "Procedurally, after a Gasquet release is executed the insured remains in the lawsuit as a 'nominal' defendant while the plaintiff pursues recovery from the excess insurer.") Id.

9.  Rec. Doc. No. 236.

10.  Rec. Doc. 270.

11.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

12.  Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995).

14.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (quotations omitted).

15.  State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990).

16.  Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted).

17.  Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).

18.  Clift v. Clift, 210 F.3d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2000).

19.  Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 2008).

20.  Evanston Insurance Co. v. Riceland Petroleum Co., 369 F.Supp.3d 673, 679 (W.D. La. 2019)(citing Coleman v. School Board of Richland Parish, 418 F.3d 511, 516 (5th Cir. 2005)).

21.  Id. (citing Coleman, 418 F.Supp.3d at 517-18).

22.  Id. (citing Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., No. 2000-0947 (La. 12/19/00), 774 So.2d 119, 124).

23.  Interbusiness Bank, N.A. v. First Nat'l Bank of Mifflintown, 318 F.Supp.2d 230, 235 (M.D. Pa. 2004); see also 10A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 (3d ed.1998).

24.  10A Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure (Wright & Miller) § 2720 (4th ed. 2022).

27.  No. 3:17-CV-320-JWD-EWD, 2019 WL 3364320 at *4 (M.D. La. July 25, 2019)(citing Smith v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 1998)(holding, where plaintiff failed to oppose the motion for summary judgment, that facts in "Statement of Undisputed Facts" were admitted, "except to the extent that the 'facts' in the 'Statement of Undisputed Facts' are contradicted by 'facts' in other materials attached to his motion for summary judgment." (citation omitted)); Porter v. Dauthier, No. 14-41, 2015 WL 5611647 at *8, *13 (M.D. La. Sept. 23, 2015) (deGravelles, J.)(relying on Smith and holding, when Plaintiff's opposition left "no doubt about his disagreement with either the basis or import of each of Plaintiff's undisputed facts," that Plaintiff would have forty-eight hours from the issuance of the ruling to comply with the Local Rule, and ultimately denying the motion for summary judgment)).

28.  Rec. Doc. 1, ¶ 4.

29.  Id. The terms "lineup" and "Bible Study" appear to be used interchangeably and refer to the same event that occurred on September 13, 2017.

31.  Id. at ¶ 6.

32.  Id. at ¶ 33.

33.  Rec. Doc. 286-4, Isto Depo, 10:4-14; Rec. Doc. 286-5, Isto Depo, 100:18-23.

34.  Rec. Doc. 286-4, Isto Depo, 18:22-23.

35.  Id. at 21:6-11.

36.  Id. at 23:7-9.

37.  Rec. Doc. 286-6, Isto Depo, 181:15-19.

38.  Rec. Doc. 286-4, Isto Depo, 32:13-17.

39.  Rec. Doc. 286-4, Isto Depo, 62:17-25; Rec. Doc. 286-5, Isto Depo, 164:2-20.

40.  Rec. Doc. 286-4, Isto Depo, 67:10-68:1.

41.  Id. at 69:1-4.

42.  Id. at 69-73.

43.  Id. at 69:16, 71:22-25.

44.  Rec. Doc. 286-5, Isto Depo, 92:12-94:18.

45.  Rec. Doc. 286-4, Isto Depo, 73:15-20.

46.  Rec. Doc. 286-4, Isto Depo, 74:3-11; Rec. Doc. 286-6, Isto Depo, 207:12-21.

47.  Rec. Doc. 286-4, Isto Depo, 77:15-22.

48.  Id. at 60:14-25, 63:5-19.

49.  Rec. Doc. 286-5, Isto Depo, 96:11-24.

50.  Rec. Doc. 286-7, Policy, p. 6.

51.  Rec. Doc. 292-2.

52.  Rec. Doc. 292, p. 13 fn. 2 ("For example, the Gruvers no longer allege that Isto, inter alia, "[p]articipated in, gave material support to, authorized, encouraged, and permitted the hazing and misconduct that harmed and imperiled Max." See Rec. Doc. No. 286-3 at 2 (citing Rec. Doc. No .1, ¶33(a)). The Gruvers now allege that Isto "participated in, gave material support to, authorized, encouraged, permitted and/or failed to prohibit or stop the hazing and misconduct that harmed and imperiled Max." See Rec. Doc. No. 214 at 17 ¶79(a) (emphasis added).").

53.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo. at 82:15-83:8, 210:11-14; see also Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 93:18-94:4.

54.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 210:15-20.

55.  Id. at 82:15-83:8, 98:2-9, 210:11-14.

56.  Rec. Doc. 292-4, Isto Depo at 86:8-88:5, 89:10-23. The Greek alphabet phase, wall sits, and wearing garbage bags are explained in further detail, infra.

57.  Id. at 31:16-20.

58.  Id. at 55:12-63:17.

59.  Rec Doc. 292-2, pp. 7-11.

60.  Rec. Doc. 288-6.

61.  Rec. Doc. 288-7, Pennison Depo at 25:2-4; Rec. Doc. 288-8, Kirkpatrick Depo at 65:3-8.

62.  Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 67:10-22; Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 13:24-14:3, 40:12-41:2.

63.  Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 71:10-72:3, 73:3-5, 74:8-14; Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 14:11-15:6.

64.  Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 15:7-13.

65.  Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 74:8-16; Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 15:14-17.

66.  Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 75:14-22; Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 66:2-9; Rec. Doc. 288-7, Pennison Depo at 152:20-153:3.

67.  Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 15:18-24; Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 83:3-84:23.

68.  Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 15:25-16:12; Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 73:25-74:11, 76:9-13.

69.  Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 76:24-77:2; Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 76:14-17.

70.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 64:25-65:7, 69:7-74:6; Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 75:7-10, 93:13-94:1.

71.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 23:7-9.

72.  Id. at 67:21-68:8, 171:12-172:13; Rec. Doc. 288-12, Castillo Decl. at ¶¶ 5-26.

73.  Rec. Doc. 288-12, Castillo Decl. at ¶¶ 6-11.

74.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 74:17-22, 180:6-181:14.

75.  Id. at 182:5-9.

76.  Id. at 170:25-171:6.

77.  Id. at 209:14-17.

78.  Id. at 62:17-25, 209:9-21.

79.  Id. at 68:18-20.

80.  Id. at 67:21-68:1, 182:3-4, 208:20-209:13.

81.  Id. at 182:3-4.

82.  Id. at 73:15-24.

83.  Id. at 77:9-78:20.

84.  Id. at 82:15-83:8, 210:11-14; Rec. Doc. 288-9, Forde Depo at 93:18-94:4.

86.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 210:15-20.

87.  Id. at 83:9-12.

88.  Id. at 83:16-84:4.

89.  Id. at 140:24-141:23.

90.  Id. at 88:9-13.

91.  Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 67:24-68:19.

92.  Id. at 19:5-12, 90:11-23.

93.  Id. at 19:13-20:2, 68:20-69:1.

94.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 96:21-97:23; Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 90:16-23.

95.  Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 20:3-12.

96.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 82:15-83:8, 98:2-9, 210:11-14.

97.  Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 45:5-9.

98.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 96:11-20.

99.  Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 23:1-16; Rec. Doc. 288-8, Kirkpatrick Depo at 91:17-22.

100.  Rec. Doc. 288-12, Castillo Decl. at ¶ 42.

101.  Rec. Doc. 288-8, Kirkpatrick Depo at 169:20-24; Rec. Doc. 288-12, Castillo Decl. at ¶ 43.

102.  Rec. Doc. 288-13, Phi Delt 2017 Pledge Blass GroupMe (Screenshot Format)(Dep. Exhibit 1011) at LSU003886; Rec. Doc. 288-14, Phi Delt 2017 Pledge Blass Group Me (Spreadsheet Format)(Dep. Exhibit 1013) at 40; see also Rec. Doc. 288-15, Cerise Depo at 75:2-25, 77:1-10, 87:12-23, 102:1-103:11; Rec. Doc. 288-10, Rabalais Depo at 34:2-22.

103.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 99:10-12.

104.  Rec. Doc. 288-12, Castillo Decl. at ¶ 44.

105.  Id. at ¶ 45.

106.  Id. at ¶ 46.

107.  Rec. Doc. 288-7, Pennison Depo at 77:11-17.

108.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 98:19-22.

109.  Id. at 99:19-22, 178:9-25.

110.  Id. at 100:10-17.

111.  Rec. Doc. 288-7, Pennison Depo at 74:20-24.

112.  Id. at 76:18-22; Rec. Doc. 288-13, Phi Delt 2017 Pledge Blass GroupMe (Screenshot Format) (Dep. Exhibit 1011) at LSU003886; Rec. Doc. 288-14, Phi Delt 2017 Pledge Blass Group Me (Spreadsheet Format) (Dep. Exhibit 1013) at 40.

113.  Rec. Doc. 288-16, Records from Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center at GRUVER001614.

115.  Id. at GRUVER001620; Rec. Doc. 288-5, Certification of Death for Maxwell R. Gruver.

116.  Rec. Doc. 288-17, Report of the Coroner.

117.  La. R.S. 17:1801.

118.  Rec. Doc. 288-18, Indictment.

119.  Rec. Doc. 288-19, Isto Plea Agreement.

120.  Id. at ¶ 1; Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 10:4-14.

121.  Rec. Doc. 288-19, Isto Plea Agreement at ¶ 8.

122.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 18:13-15; Rec. Doc. 288-20, Isto Decl. at ¶ 4.

123.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 18:16-17.

124.  Id. at 18:22-23; Rec. Doc. 288-20, Isto Decl. at ¶ 6.

125.  Rec. Doc. 288-20, Isto Decl. at ¶ 7.

126.  Id. at ¶ 8.

127.  Rec. Doc. 288-11, Isto Depo at 7:12-19, 18:24-19:2, 211:6-8.

128.  Rec. Doc. 288-20, Isto Decl. at ¶ 10.

129.  Rec. Doc. 288-21, Affidavit of Michael Ross, ¶¶ 14, 17; Rec. Doc. 288-22, Certified Copy of Allstate Canada Policy; Rec. Doc. 236-1, Allstate Canada's Memorandum in Support of Motion of Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, Inc. for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, p. 3 ("Mover issued a homeowner's policy number 151409848 to Mark and Ann Isto of 1432 Stoneybrook Trail Oakville, Ontario, Canada, as listed Insureds."); Rec. Doc. 275, p. 2, ¶ III, Allstate Canada's Answer to Second Amended Complaint (admitting that "a policy of insurance was issued by Allstate")).

130.  Rec. Doc. 288-23, Allstate Canada's Offer to Renew to Mark & Ann Isto, Policy No. 151409848.

131.  Id.; Rec. Doc. 288-21, Affidavit of Michael Ross, ¶¶ 14, 16.

132.  Rec. Doc. 288-22, Certified Copy of Allstate Canada Policy, Section I, Definitions, "Insured."

135.  Id. at Section II - Liability Coverages, "Legal Liability."

137.  Rec. Doc. 288-24, 12/17/19 Letter from M. Ross to R. Isto; Rec. Doc. 288-25, Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission to Allstate Canada at Request for Admission No. 12 and Exhibit B; Allstate Canada's Answer to Request for Admission No. 12; Rec. Doc. 288-21, Affidavit of Michael Ross at ¶ 2.

138.  Rec. Doc. 288-24, 12/17/19 Letter from M. Ross to R. Isto, p. 1.

141.  Id. at pp. 1-2.

142.  Rec. Doc. 288-22, Certified Copy of Allstate Canada Policy, Section II - Liability Coverages, "LOSS OR DAMAGE NOT INSURED (Applying to Section II)" (Rec. Doc. No. 236-2 at 13).

143.  Rec. Doc. 214, ¶ 30.

144.  Rec. Doc. 217.

145.  Id. at pp. 1-2.

146.  Rec. Doc. 275.

147.  Id. at p. 4, ¶ XV.

148.  Rec. Doc. 288-26, Stolbach Decl., ¶ 5.

149.  Id. at ¶ 6.

150.  Id. at Exhibit 1, Stolbach Written Report.

151.  Rec. Doc. 285.

152.  Rec. Doc. 288-27, Fazzola Decl., ¶ 14.

153.  Id. at ¶ 15.

154.  Id. at ¶ 16.

155.  Rec. Doc. 285, p. 1.

156.  Rec. Doc. 288-27, Fazzola Decl., ¶ 17.

157.  Rec. Doc. 285, p. 2.

158.  Rec. Doc. 288-27, Fazzola Decl., ¶ 18.

159.  Rec. Doc. 288-26, Stolbach Decl., ¶ 8.

160.  Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e)(3); see also Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1995).

161.  Rec. Doc. 288-1, p. 20 n. 6.

162.  Rec. Doc. 270.

163.  Id. at p. 9 (citing Rec. Doc. 236-1, p. 11; Rec. Doc. 238, pp.18-19).

164.  The Court agrees that Allstate Canada's conduct meets the test for the application of judicial estoppel. See Rec. Doc. 292, p. 17 ("Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that 'prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken in the same or some earlier proceeding.' Owens v. W. & S. Life. Ins. Co., 717 F. App'x 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Gabarick v. Laurin Mar. (Am.) Inc., 753 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir. 2014). The doctrine 'prevent[s] litigants from playing fast and loose with the courts, and protects the integrity of the judicial process.' Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). 'Two elements are necessary for judicial estoppel: (1) the estopped party's position must be clearly inconsistent with its previous one, and (2) that party must have convinced the court to accept that previous position.' Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted)."). However, the Court also finds, as a matter of law, that Canadian law applies to the Policy in question.

165.  Rec. Doc. 292, p. 17.

166.  Id. at p. 10.

167.  Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 1999).

168.  La. Civ. Code Art. 3515.

169.  La. Civ. Code Art. 3537 cmt. C; see also Abraham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 609, 612 (5th Cir. 2006).

170.  Abraham, 465 F.3d at 613.

172.  Rohr v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 06-30970, 2007 WL 3120131 at *3-4 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2007).

174.  Rec. Doc. No. 236-1, p. 4.

175.  Rec. Doc. 286-3, p. 10.

176.  Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl.

177.  Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation v. IZTACCIHUATL 2501, 510 F.Supp.3d 404, 410 (E.D. La. 2020)(citing e.g., McGee v. Arkel Int'l, LLC, 671 F.3d 539, 546-47 (5th Cir. 2012) (considering affidavits from experts on Iraqi law); Authenment v. Ingram Barge Co., 878 F. Supp. 2d 672, 682 (E.D. La. 2012) (Milazzo, J.) (considering affidavit of expert on English law)).

178.  Id. at 411 n. 32 (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 44.1, cmt. (noting "the rule provides flexible procedures for presenting and utilizing material on issues of foreign law"); see also 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2444 (3d ed. 2020 update) (noting that, after the adoption of Rule 44.1, "the trial court's freedom of inquiry no longer is encumbered by any restraint on its research or by the rules of admissibility"). If declarations attesting to a foreign law issue were insufficient, that would undermine the purpose of Rule 44.1-judicial efficiency. See McGee, 671 F.3d at 546 (accepting affidavits as proof of foreign law)).

179.  Id.; Rec. Doc. 292-1, Knutsen Supplemental Decl., ¶ 8.

180.  Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl., ¶¶ 78 (a)-(d).

181.  Rec. Doc. 288-1, pp. 15-18 (citations omitted).

182.  Id. at p. 18 (quoting Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl., ¶94 (citing Canadian Indemnity Co. v. Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 309 at 317).

183.  Id. (quoting Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl., ¶94 (citing Second Am. Compl. (Rec. Doc. 214) at ¶¶89, 218-223)). Plaintiffs also argue that Isto was negligent under Louisiana law. Id. at pp. 12-13. Because the Court finds that Canadian law applies to the interpretation of the Policy, the Court declines to discuss these arguments.

184.  Rec. Doc. 288-1, pp. 20-21 (citing SUMF, ¶¶ 103-108).

185.  See Rec. Doc. 286-3, pp. 5-6.

186.  Rec. Doc. 292, pp. 19-20 (citations omitted).

187.  Id. at p. 20 (citation omitted)(internal quotation marks omitted).

188.  Rec. Doc. 288-1, p. 24, fn. 9.

189.  Donahue v. Republic National Distributing Company, LLC, 489 F.Supp.3d 455, 467 (E.D. La. 2020)(quoting Aunt Sally's Praline Shop, Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 418 F. App'x 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2011)(explaining state law determines what constitutes an affirmative defense for purposes of Rule 8(c))).

190.  Id. (citing Aunt Sally's, 418 F. App'x at 330; LSREF2 Baron, L.L.C. v. Tauch, 751 F.3d 394, 398 (5th Cir. 2014)).

191.  In the interest of clarity, under Louisiana's choice-of-law provisions, the Court determined that Canadian law applies to the interpretation of the terms of the insurance policy; however, Plaintiffs assert the Louisiana state law claim of negligence against Isto in federal district court. Thus, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to the procedural aspects of this matter, and for purposes of determining whether an affirmative defense has been properly pled, FRCP 8(c) requires federal courts to apply the substantive law of the State of Louisiana on what constitutes an affirmative defense.

192.  Id. (citing Aunt Sally's, 418 F. App'x at 330).

193.  Id. (citing Aunt Sally's, 418 F. App'x at 330).

194.  Id. (citing Aunt Sally's, 418 F. App'x at 330).

195.  Rec. Doc. 288-27, ¶ 10.

196.  See Rec. Doc. 288-22, Elite Homeowner Policy (Rec. Doc. No. 236-2), p. 7; Rec. Doc. 286-7, VIP Tenant Policy, p. 6.

197.  Rec. Doc. 286-3, p. 9.

198.  Rec. Doc. 286-3, pp. 6-9.

199.  Rec. Doc. 292, pp. 7-8 ("But La. R.S. 14:40.8 - also known as the 'Max Gruver Act' - was not enacted until May 31, 2018, and did not go into effect until August 1, 2018, nearly a year after Max's death. SAUMF ¶74. Thus, La. R.S. 14:40.8 is inapposite, and Allstate Canada's misplaced reliance on it undermines almost every argument in Allstate Canada's summary judgment motion.").

200.  Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl., ¶¶ 48-55; Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's of London v. Scalera, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 551 (S.C.C.) at para. 92 (found in Rec. Doc. 288-2, pp. 61-96)(emphasis added).

201.  Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl., ¶ 109; Scalera, 2000 SCC 24 at para. 92.

202.  Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl., ¶¶ 56-60; Durham Dist. Sch. Bd. v. Grodesky, 2012 ONCA 270 (Court of Appeal for Ontario) at para. 9-10 (found in Rec. Doc. 288-2, pp. 98-101).

203.  Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl., ¶¶ 62-69; Eichmanis v. Wawanesa Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 ONCA 92 (Court of Appeal for Ontario) at para. 22, 27 (found in Rec. Doc. 288-2, pp. 103-112).

204.  Rec. Doc. 292, pp. 22-23 (citing Scalera, 2000 SCC 24 at para. 92; Grodesky, 2012 ONCA 270 at para. 9-10; Eichmanis, 2007 ONCA 92 at para. 22, 27; see also Rec. Doc. 288-2, ¶¶ 98, 104-105, 109, 116-117, 122, 126).

205.  Rec. Doc. 288-2, Knutsen Decl., ¶ 112.

206.  Id. at ¶ 113.

207.  Id. at ¶¶ 123-125.

208.  Id. at ¶¶ 107-108.

210.  Commonly prevailing meanings of words are used in insurance policies when words are ambiguous and not defined in the policy. There is no guidance as to the common meaning of these words in the insurance policy. La. Civ. Code. Art. 2047; Breland v. Schilling, 550 So. 2d 609, 610 (La. 1989).

211.  Rec. Doc. No. 288-2, ¶¶ 120-21; Rec. Doc. No. 288-3 ¶¶ 23-25, 35, 48-49.

212.  Rec. Doc. No. 288-22.

213.  Rec. Doc. 288-1, p. 29 (citing Co-operators Gen Ins Co. v Kane, 2017 BCSC 1720 (British Columbia Supreme Court) at para.78 ("abuse" in exclusion is an "unjust or corrupt practice" and "cruel and violent treatment of a person" as opposed to an injury, which is an "instance of being injured"); Dube v BCCA Ins Cor, 2012 BCSC 1958 (British Columbia Supreme Court) at para. 40 ("injury" and "abuse" have different meanings); see also Ex. 1, Knutsen Decl. ¶77 (citing foregoing cases)).

215.  Id. at p. 30 (citing Kane, 2017 BCSC 1720 at para. 78; Dube, 2012 BCSC 1958 at para. 40; see also Ex. 1, Knutsen Decl. ¶¶127-129).

216.  Rec. Doc. 286.

217.  Rec. Doc. 288.

SHELLY D. DICK, CHIEF JUDGE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FindLaw's United States District Court M D Louisiana case and opinions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stephen M. GRUVER and Rae Ann Gruver, individually and on behalf of Maxwell R. Gruver, deceased v. State of LOUISIANA THROUGH the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, et al. Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr., John Lane Ewing, Jr., Cazayoux Ewing, LLC, Baton Rouge, LA, Chloe M.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #4- Statute and Administrative Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #4- Statute and Administrative Law

# data[].attributes.body
Federal Statute- The Clery Act - codified 20 U.S.C. § 1092 (f), with implementing regulations in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations at 34 C.F.R. 668.46

Link to full text of law: The Clery Act (clerycenter.org)

The Clery Act is a federal law that requires colleges and universities in the United States that receive federal funding to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses.

Educational institutions must publish an annual security report that includes statistics on crime and other incidents that occur on campus, as well as policies and procedures related to campus safety and security.

The report must be made easily accessible to students, faculty, and staff, and must be provided to prospective students and employees upon request.

The Clery Act requires educational institutions to issue timely warnings to the campus community about certain crimes that represent a threat to safety and security.

Educational institutions must maintain a public crime log that records all crimes reported on campus and must make it available to the public upon request.

The Clery Act requires educational institutions to establish procedures for reporting and investigating crimes, and to provide support and resources to victims of crime.

Educational institutions must have a campus security authority who is responsible for receiving and reporting incidents of crime and other safety-related issues.

The Clery Act also requires educational institutions to provide fire safety information and statistics to the campus community.

Educational institutions that violate The Clery Act can face legal consequences, including fines and loss of federal funding.

State Administrative Law- 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 781.305

Link to full text of law: Welcome to the Texas Administrative Code

22 Tex. Admin. Code § 781.305 (Sexual Misconduct) is a state law that requires law enforcement agencies in Texas to establish and maintain policies and procedures for responding to and investigating incidents of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.

Law enforcement agencies must ensure that officers receive training on responding to and investigating these types of crimes, and must have policies in place to protect the privacy and confidentiality of survivors.

The law requires that law enforcement agencies provide survivors with written information on their rights and options, including the availability of medical forensic exams and other support services.

Law enforcement agencies must also have procedures in place for collecting and preserving evidence related to incidents of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.

The law requires that law enforcement agencies provide information to survivors about the status of their case and any available victim services.

Law enforcement agencies must also have procedures in place for identifying and addressing any biases or prejudices that may affect the investigation of these types of crimes.

Law enforcement agencies must provide annual reports to the Texas Department of Public Safety on the number of incidents of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that were reported and investigated by the agency.

The law requires that law enforcement agencies provide training to their officers on responding to and investigating incidents involving individuals with disabilities and individuals who are members of other vulnerable populations.

Law enforcement agencies that violate 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 781.305 can face legal consequences, including fines and disciplinary action.

References:

The Clery Act. (n.d.). Www.clerycenter.org. https://www.clerycenter.org/the-clery-act

Welcome to the Texas Administrative Code. (2018). Texas.gov. https://www.sos.texas.gov/tac/index.shtml

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Arrests and Referrals for Disciplinary Action

Weapons law violations

Drug abuse violations

Liquor law violations

Crime Reporting Geography and Availability

Clery Act crime reporting is not strictly limited to events that occur on campus or within campus buildings and residences. Institutions must include statistics for crime that occur in any of these geographic areas:

On-campus (anywhere)

On-campus student housing

Public property within campus bounds

Public property immediately adjacent to the campus

Noncampus buildings and property owned or controlled by the organization that are used for educational purposes and frequently used by students but not a part of the core campus, or those owned or controlled by a student organization officially recognized by the institution

Wherever crimes occur, campus police and public safety departments must maintain a daily crime log of all reported crimes that fall within their jurisdiction. This crime log must be made available to the public during daily business hours.

Resource: Understanding Clery Statistics

Timely Warnings and Emergency Notifications

When a crime covered by the Clery Act occurs, campus officials are required to evaluate if there is a serious or ongoing threat to the campus community to determine if a timely warning needs to be issued to all staff and students.

In the event of an immediate, significant danger to the health or safety campus community (e.g. weather, disease outbreak), campus officials may issue an emergency notification. This notification can include the entire campus, or be limited to a specific area deemed to be at risk.

Resource: Timely Warning and Emergency Notification Checklist

Victim Rights, Options, and Resources

Victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking have specific rights, options, and resources guaranteed to them by the Clery Act.

Prevention Education

Institutions are required to provide to students and employees, on an introductory and ongoing basis, prevention and awareness programs on the crimes covered above. These programs must include material on bystander intervention and risk reduction aimed at recognizing the warning signs of these crimes.

Student and Employee Rights

Institutions must provide victims of the crimes covered above with a written explanation of their rights. These rights include the option for a relocation/change of housing, transportation, or academic course assignment. They also include access to counseling services, legal services, and law enforcement notification.

Disciplinary Proceedings

All disciplinary proceedings must be conducted by trained parties at the institution - either individuals or panels of trained persons. Proceedings are required to be prompt, fair, and impartial, and must confer certain procedural rights to both the accuser and the accused.

Resource: VAWA Amendments Checklist

Additional Clery Act Resources

Clery Act Appendix for FSA Handbook: As of October 9, 2020 the Department of Education has rescinded and archived the Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting. While the Handbook may still be utilized as a guide of promising practices for campuses to review for Clery Act implementation, it is no longer regarded by the Department as current guidance that campuses should rely upon. They have instead provided a Clery-related Appendix to the Federal Student Aid Handbook. This Appendix does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public. The document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

2016 Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting: The Handbook was rescinded and archived on October 9, 2020 but, where appropriately applied to prior calendar years, will continue to be referenced in program review reports, final program review determinations, and final audit determinations.

Clery Act Program Review Reports: an online archive of final program review reports, released by the U.S. Department of Education.

Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines: UCR program guidance on collecting and reporting hate crimes, in keeping with Clery Act requirements.

Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook: crime reporting procedures as outlined by the FBI, for supplementation to Clery Act reporting.

For additional guidance on Clery Act compliance, Clery Center offers extensive training solutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Weapons law violations Drug abuse violations Liquor law violations Clery Act crime reporting is not strictly limited to events that occur on campus or within campus buildings and residences.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #3- Federal and State Constitutional Laws

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #3- Federal and State Constitutional Laws

# data[].attributes.body
Federal Constitutional Law- Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (85 FR 30026) Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§1681 - 1688 (2018)

Link to full text of law: Title IX Education Amendments | HHS.gov

Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives federal funding.

Under Title IX, educational institutions must ensure that all students, regardless of gender, have equal access to educational opportunities.

Title IX applies to all aspects of education, including admissions, academic programs, athletics, and employment.

Educational institutions must have a Title IX coordinator who oversees compliance with the law and investigates any complaints of sex-based discrimination.

Schools must have policies and procedures in place for handling and investigating complaints of sex-based discrimination, harassment, and assault.

Educational institutions must provide training to employees and students on their rights and responsibilities under Title IX.

Title IX requires educational institutions to take prompt and effective action to address and remedy any instances of sex-based discrimination, harassment, or assault.

Title IX protections also extend to pregnant and parenting students, who must be given equal access to educational opportunities and accommodations.

Institutions that violate Title IX can lose federal funding and may face legal consequences.

State Constitutional Law- Texas Education Code § 51.252

Link to full text of law: Texas Education Code Section 51.252 - Reporting Required for Certain Incidents (public.law)

Texas Education Code § 51.252 is a state law that requires public colleges and universities in Texas to develop and implement a policy on sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.

The policy must be made easily accessible to students, faculty, and staff, and must include information on reporting procedures, resources available to survivors, and disciplinary procedures for perpetrators.

The policy must also establish procedures for investigating and resolving reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.

The policy must include provisions for protecting the privacy and confidentiality of individuals involved in reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.

The policy must provide for education and prevention programs to be offered to students, faculty, and staff on sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.

Educational institutions must have a Title IX coordinator who is responsible for overseeing compliance with the law and investigating reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.

Texas Education Code § 51.252 also requires public colleges and universities in Texas to annually report data on incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Educational institutions that violate Texas Education Code § 51.252 can face legal consequences and may be subject to fines and other penalties.

References:

Office for Civil Rights. (2019, October 4). Sex-Based Harassment. HHS.gov. https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/harassment/index.html

Texas Education Code Section 51.252 - Reporting Required for Certain Incidents. (n.d.). Texas Public Law. https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._educ._code_section_51.252

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) prohibits sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity) discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
What conduct is prohibited by Title IX?
The Title IX regulation states that "except for provided elsewhere in this part, no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, or other education program or activity operated by a recipient which receives ... Federal financial assistance ....

(b) Specific prohibitions. Except as provided in this subpart, in providing any aid, benefit, or service to a student, a recipient shall not, on the basis of sex:

(1) Treat one person differently from another in determining whether such person satisfies any requirement or condition for the provision of such aid, benefit, or service;

(2) Provide different aid, benefits, or services or provide aid, benefits, or services in a different manner;

(3) Deny any person any such aid, benefit, or service;

(4) Subject any person to separate or different rules of behavior, sanctions, or other treatment;

(5) Discriminate against any person in the application of any rules of appearance;

(6) Apply any rule concerning the domicile or residence of a student or applicant, including eligibility for in-state fees and tuition;

(7) Aid or perpetuate discrimination against any person by providing significant assistance to any agency, organization, or person which discriminates on the basis of sex in providing any aid, benefit or service to students or employees;

(8) Otherwise limit any person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity." 45 C.F.R. § 86.31

The full text of HHS's Title IX regulation can be found here.
What are some examples of sex discrimination?
Under Title IX, sex discrimination can take many forms, such as:

1. Denying admission of a person into an educational or training program on the basis of sex;

2. Disqualifying a person for a research position on the basis of sex when it is irrelevant to ability to perform the job;

3. Providing unequal educational resources to students of one sex compared to another;

4. Engaging in gender -based or sexual harassment such as making unwelcome sexual comments, advances, and/or name-calling on the basis of sex.

Federal courts and agencies have found that Title IX prohibits sex-based harassment, including sexual harassment, when such harassment is sufficiently serious as to limit the ability to participate in and benefit from a program or activity. Click here for more information on sex-based harassment.

Some examples of sexual harassment by entities receiving HHS funds include but are not limited to:

1. Unwelcome and inappropriate advances to students and employees of a research lab funded by HHS made by professors, employees, researchers, teachers, and/or students;

2. Sexual assault of a student or employee by a doctor or other medical staff in a student sports medicine program or other clinical setting that receives HHS funding.

Who is covered by Title IX?
Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in the education programs and activities of entities that receive federal financial assistance. These programs and activities include "all of the operations of ... a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education." 20 U.S.C. § 1687(2)(A); see also 45 C.F.R. § 86.2(h). Therefore, Title IX's nondiscrimination protections apply to student recruitment, admissions, educational programs (including individual courses), research, housing, counseling, financial and employment assistance, health and insurance benefits and health services. The federal agency that provides the federal financial assistance has jurisdiction over Title IX complaints.

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has jurisdiction over Title IX claims of discrimination against entities that receive federal financial assistance through HHS. Such entities include:

1. Colleges and universities, including all of the programs they operate, regardless of which program receives federal financial assistance from HHS. For example, a university would be covered by Title IX if:

1. The university's medical center receives Medicare reimbursements from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services;

2. The university's biology department receives grants from the National Institutes of Health;

3. The university's medical, dental, or nursing programs receive funds from the Health Resources and Services Administration.

2. Education programs and activities of entities that are not colleges or universities but receive federal financial assistance from HHS for their educational program or activity. For example:

1. Head Start educational programs for young children funded by the Administration for Children & Families

2. Hospital professional training clinical programs that receive HHS funding;

3. Fatherhood programs providing job training, financial education and other educational programs that receive grants through the Administration for Children & Families.

HHS OCR also has jurisdiction under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Section 1557) to investigate complaints of sex discrimination in health programs and activities of recipients of federal financial assistance and other covered entities. Click here for more information about Section 1557.
What should I do if I believe I have been discriminated against under Title IX?
You can file a complaint with OCR if you have been subjected to sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, in an education program or activity that may have received HHS funds.

We will promptly inform you as to whether we have jurisdiction to investigate your complaint. If we determine that the entity named in your complaint does not receive HHS funds, but receives funds from a different federal agency, we will forward the complaint to the appropriate agency.

Certain types of complaints may be forwarded to another agency. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations generally require referral of individual employment complaints of sex discrimination to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If there is a pattern and practice of employment discrimination or if the complaint alleges discrimination in employment and in other practices of a recipient, then OCR can investigate the complaint.

If you are not sure about whether OCR has jurisdiction to investigate your complaint, file a complaint with our office and we will help answer your questions through the complaint intake process and our initial evaluation of the complaint. For more information on how to file a complaint, click here.

Please note that Title IX specifically prohibits retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint. When investigating a complaint, OCR informs all recipients of the prohibition on retaliation. In addition, during the complaint process, OCR will seek the complainant's consent to reveal his/her identity or identifying information, if necessary, to investigate the complaint. Consent is voluntary, and it is not always needed to investigate a complaint. Failure to provide consent, however, may make it difficult to investigate some aspects of the complaint.
How does OCR resolve my complaint?
If OCR determines that it has jurisdiction, OCR will investigate the complaint or, in some cases, refer the complaint to an agency with joint jurisdiction. When OCR identifies a violation or compliance concern, it will work with the recipient to achieve compliance with the law. Depending on the scope of the changes required, complaints can be resolved through voluntary compliance letters or agreements requiring the recipient to develop policies, monitoring, notification, and training, which also resolve the specific incidents alleged in the complaint. If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, OCR can issue a formal findings letter and refer the case to DOJ or begin administrative proceedings to revoke federal funds.

What are some examples of OCR enforcement actions under Title IX:

*This content is undergoing a Section 508 review. If you need immediate assistance accessing this content, please submit a request to OCRMail@hhs.gov. Content will be updated pending the outcome of the Section 508 review.
Where can I get more information?
Resources for those receiving or affected by NIH-funded STEM and research:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

# data[].attributes.body
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the US Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for jurisdiction over Title IX claims of discrimination or sexual harassment regarding institutions that receive federal funding (OCR, 2019). The OCR also has the authority to initiate compliance reviews of entities that are covered in which there are absence of complaints, but there is credible information that they may be in violation of Title IX. OCR also conducts proactive investigations to examine potential systemic violations based on sources of information other than complaints. Another aspect of the OCR is to provide guidance to schools, universities, and other educational institutions to assist in complying with the law. Title IX is monitored on the federal level, and there are not any state offices that monitor this subject.

Governing bodies are organizations that are responsible for making and enforcing rules, regulations, and policies. They can vary from national governments to organizations with varying levels of authority and scope of responsibility. Their primary goal is to ensure their constituents are protected. Governing bodies will do this by implementing legislation, regulation, and taxation. Federal and state governments are are accountable to their citizens, who have the right to hold them responsible for their actions, decisions, and policies. They must adhere to strict rules and regulations to remain accountable to the individuals they serve.

References:
Office for Civil Rights. (2019, October 4). Sex-Based Harassment. HHS.gov. https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/harassment/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
The topic we will be discussing today is Title IX which encompasses sexual misconduct, harassment, discrimination or unwelcome behavior that is sexual in nature. As a higher education professional, I am considered a mandatory reporter regarding any violations of Title IX requirements, this means being required to report any information that is shared with me or that I witness that could warrant a Title IX issue. In many institutions of higher education, a Title IX office is responsible for monitoring and investigating these reports. Mandatory reporting is crucial ensure all claims of Title IX violations are investigated and most individuals in administrative leadership positions are mandatory reporters. I chose this topic because it's very relevant in my field and Title IX issues can have profound impacts on those involved. It's important to be familiar with laws regarding this subject while working in education and around students since this topic is an unfortunate reality in many institutions of higher education. A dedicated Title IX office can prove incredibly beneficial to show a university's commitment to uphold its legal obligations and promote a campus culture of inclusion, equity, and respect.