Ex-JMU Faculty Member’s Suit Revived Over Sex Harassment Probe

James Madison University saw its win overturned Tuesday in a former faculty member’s Title IX and due process lawsuit over its sexual harassment investigation into—and decision to reprimand—her for an allegedly nonconsensual relationship with a graduate student.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on an issue of first impression for the court: The test for determining when an employment discrimination claim accrues under Title IX of the Education Amendments, for purposes of measuring the timeliness of a lawsuit, is the same as for employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What matters is when the challenged employment action was “complete and present,” the court said.

The timeliness of Alyssa Reid’s federal and state law procedural due process claims was also properly measured from when JMU’s finding that she violated its Title IX policy and decision to place a letter of reprimand in her file became final, the court said. Both claims were subject to Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, the Fourth Circuit said on another novel issue.

The public university is located in Harrisonburg, Va. JMU President Jonathan Alger, Provost Heather Coltman, Dean Robert Aguirre, and Title IX Coordinator Amy Sirocky-Meck are also defendants.

Suit Wrongly Dismissed

Reid’s lawsuit was wrongly dismissed, because a lower court mistakenly measured her time to sue from the date of Aguirre’s decision that Reid violated the policy, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. said.

Evidence showed Aguirre’s decision didn’t make clear that it was the university’s official and final position, the judge said. Finality came when Coltman later denied Reid’s appeal of Aguirre’s decision, which—unlike Aguirre’s decision—occurred less than two years before Reid sued, making her claims timely, he said.

“To be sure, parts of” Aguirre’s written decision, including its reference to having conducted a thorough review and finding in favor of the student who complained about Reid after their relationship ended, “suggested finality,” Quattlebaum said. Aguirre also stated that Reid and the student’s relationship violated university policy and that a letter of reprimand should be placed in her file. And the document was titled “written decision, Quattlebaum said.

But other evidence indicated that the decision ultimately was “more preliminary than final,” the judge said. It included the decision’s description of a reprimand as a recommended sanction that was “suggested” by Aguirre in light of Reid’s having already left JMU for employment elsewhere, he said.

The hearing panel report upon which Aguirre’s decision was based also said that a university vice president, an associate vice president, or a provost determines the final outcome of Title IX cases, the court said. And JMU’s Title IX policy further “undermines the argument for the finality of” Aguirre’s decision, it said.

A document that Reid was provided outlining the appeals process if she wished to challenge Aguirre’s decision stated that the decision on appeal would be final and couldn’t be appealed further, Quattlebaum said. The document also stated that Aguirre’s decision would become final unless timely appealed, he said.

Retroactive Application Alleged

Reid’s lawsuit alleges that her due process rights were violated when JMU applied to her a new, broadened version of its Title IX policy that retroactively made her past relationship with the student a per se violation. She said the school also denied her right to confront and cross-examine her accuser and her accuser’s witnesses, and that it failed to timely provide her with a copy of the student’s complaint against her and the statements of the student’s witnesses, the Fourth Circuit said.

The court cited the US Supreme Court’s 1980 decision in Delaware State College v. Ricks in support of its holding on Reid’s Title IX claim, and it cited the justices’ 2023 decision in Reed v. Goertz in its analysis of her due process claims.

“And while we have not previously addressed this issue in a published opinion,” every other circuit to consider the applicable limitations period for Title IX and due process claims has borrowed the statute of limitations from the relevant state’s personal injury law, the court said.

Judges Paul V. Niemeyer and Stephanie D. Thacker joined the opinion.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance represent Reid. The state attorney general’s office represents the defendants.

The case is Reid v. James Madison Univ., 4th Cir., No. 22-01441, updated opinion filed 1/10/24.