L.T.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

L.T.,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-cv-00235

BRIDGE VALLEY COMMUNITY

AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE

BOARD OF GOVERNORS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 22), Bridge Valley

Community and Technical College Board of Governors’ Motion to Partially Dismiss Amended

Complaint and to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages Demand (Document 26), the

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Bridge Valley Community and Technical College Board of

Governors’ Motion to Partially Dismiss Amended Complaint and to Dismiss and/or Strike

Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages Demand (Document 33), and the Reply in Support of Bridge Valley

Community and Technical College Board of Governors’ Motion to Partially Dismiss Amended

Complaint and to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages Demand and Response in

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Amend (Document 37).

In addition, the Court has reviewed Defendants Ken Haynes and Carla Blankenbuehler’s

Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Document 28), the Memorandum of Law in Support of

1

Defendants Ken Haynes and Carla Blankenbuehler’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

(Document 29), the Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Ken Haynes and Carla Blankenbuehler’s

Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Document 35), and the Reply in Support of Defendants

Ken Haynes’s and Carla Blankenbuehler’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Response

in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Improper Request for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint

(Document 36).

The Court has also reviewed Defendant Jerry C. Osborne’s Partial Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 30), the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant

Jerry C. Osborne’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 31), the

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Jerry C. Osborne’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint (Document 34), and Defendant Jerry C. Osborne’s Reply to Plaintiff’s

Response to Defendant Jerry C. Osborne’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint (Document 38).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Plaintiff, L.T., attended Bridge Valley Community and Technical College (Bridge

Valley) during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years. She was enrolled in welding and

diesel mechanics classes, and Defendant Jerry Osborne was her welding instructor. The Bridge

Valley Community and Technical College Board of Governors (BOG) is the governing board of

Bridge Valley, a state institution of higher learning. Bridge Valley received federal and state

funds, and L.T. received federal student aid to attend Bridge Valley. Defendant Casey Sacks was

the President of Bridge Valley. Defendant Carla Blankenbuehler was the Title IX Deputy

Coordinator for Students and/or Dean of Students at all relevant times. Defendant Ken Haynes

2

was the Department Chair, Assistant Professor, and Instructional Specialist in the Manufacturing

Technologies division at Bridge Valley. Defendants Sacks, Haynes, and Blankenbuehler are all

mandatory reporters of sexual misconduct under Title IX.

While L.T. was attending her classes at Bridge Valley, Defendant Osborne sexually

touched, assaulted, and harassed her. He physically assaulted her, touched her, intimidated her,

and threatened her. L.T. reported Defendant Osborne’s misconduct to multiple Bridge Valley

employees and agents, including Diesel Professor Joe Young and Student Aid personnel. In

response to her reports, Bridge Valley personnel were dismissive, telling her that Defendant

Osborne was “just messing with” her and that “that is just how Jerry [Osborne] is.” (Am. Compl.

at ¶ 30.) However, Professor Young reported the harassment and abuse to Defendant Haynes.

Defendant Haynes either took no action and did not investigate or escalate the report, or he did

report the disclosure to Defendant Blankenbuehler and/or Defendants Sacks, who failed to

investigate or take appropriate action. No one spoke with L.T. to explain her rights or interview

her regarding her allegations. There was no investigation into L.T.’s allegations. Defendant

Osborne continued to sexually assault and harass L.T., both physically and verbally. At some

point prior to late October 2024, Defendant Osborne was informed of L.T.’s allegations, while she

remained a student in his classes. In late October 2024, Defendant Osborne approached L.T.

while she was in the classroom, “pulled her against him to ensure she was against his genitals, then

turned her towards him, grabbed her head with both hands, pulled her face up to his, and stared at

her for a prolonged time,” before releasing her and walking away. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 40.)

On or about October 9, 2024, Defendant Osborne was charged with battery in violation of

West Virginia Code § 61-2-9(c), as a result of sexual battery and/or sexual harassment or assault

3

against another student. Bridge Valley did not place him on leave, and he continued his

employment as a welding instructor until at least February 2025. L.T. feared for her safety and

was deprived of a safe learning environment free from sexual violence, harassment, and

intimidation.

Defendants Sacks, Haynes, and Blankenbuehler knew of Defendant Osborne’s character

and propensity to sexually harass and/or assault young women, and allowed him to remain in a

position of authority with unfettered access to L.T. and other students. L.T. suffered “bodily

injuries, severe emotional distress, permanent psychological injury and damage, past and future

medical/psychological expenses, mental anguish, past and future loss of enjoyment of life, past

and future humiliation, embarrassment, indignity and shame,” and she has incurred and will

continue to incur medical expenses as a result, in addition to diminished earning capacity and lost

future wages. (Id. at ¶ 120.)

L.T. brings the following claims: Count One – Title IX, as to Bridge Valley Community

and Technical College Board of Governors; and Count Two – Section 1983 Violations, as to

Defendants Jerry C. Osborne, Casey Sacks, Ken Haynes, and Carla Blankenbuehler. She seeks

compensatory and punitive damages, pre and post judgment interest, attorney fees, and costs and

litigation expenses.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint or

pleading. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521

F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading

4

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Additionally, allegations “must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(d)(1). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In other words, “a complaint must contain “more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly,

550 U.S. at 555. Moreover, “a complaint [will not] suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid

of further factual enhancements.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must “accept as true all of the factual

allegations contained in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). The Court

must also “draw[] all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor.”

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). However, statements of bare

legal conclusions “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and are insufficient to state a claim.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Furthermore, the court need not “accept as true unwarranted inferences,

unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” E. Shore Mkts., v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d

175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice . . . [because courts] ‘are not bound to accept as true a

legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 555).

5

DISCUSSION

Defendant Jerry Osborne moves to dismiss “any claim that Plaintiff L.T. is still asserting

against this Defendant in Count I of the Amended Complaint” and any Count II §1983 claims

against him in his official capacity. The Plaintiff confirmed that Count I is not alleged against

Defendant Osborne and Count II is alleged against him only in his individual capacity. Defendant

Bridge Valley Community and Technical College Board of Governors seeks to dismiss any claim

against it under § 1983, as alleged in Count II, and any claim for punitive damages. The Plaintiff

affirms that she has alleged only Count I, the Title IX claim, against Defendant Bridge Valley, and

that she does not seek punitive damages from Bridge Valley as they are not available for a Title

IX claim. Because the Amended Complaint clearly identifies which counts are asserted against

which Defendants, the Court finds no need to further address the motions to dismiss claims that

were not asserted.

Defendants Ken Haynes and Carla Blankenbuehler move to dismiss the claims against

them, brought pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They contend that any official capacity claim under §

1983 is not legally viable. As to individual capacity claims, they contend that they are entitled to

qualified immunity and that the factual allegations against them are insufficient. They contend

that the Plaintiff did not allege facts that would, if proven, “establish personal involvement in a

constitutional violation.” (Haynes and Blankenbuehler Mem. at 11.) They argue that the

Amended Complaint alleges only that they failed to take action to protect the Plaintiff, and contend

that they had no constitutional obligation to protect the Plaintiff from the harm caused by

Defendant Osborne. They further contend that the Amended Complaint does not adequately state

an equal protection claim because there are no factual allegations suggesting that they failed to act

6

because of the Plaintiff’s sex or handled similar complaints by male students differently.

Defendants Haynes and Blankenbuehler further argue that the Amended Complaint does not plead

sufficient facts to state a claim for supervisory liability. Finally, they urge the Court to dismiss or

strike the request for punitive damages, arguing that the alleged facts do not show a sufficiently

culpable state of mind.

The Plaintiff notes that Count I was asserted only against Bridge Valley, and Count II is

asserted against these Defendants in their individual capacities, not in their official capacities.1

She argues that the Amended Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state a claim

against Defendants Blankenbuehler and Haynes, citing her allegations that they were aware of

Defendant Osborne’s character and the risk of harm posed to her, but failed to take any action to

protect her from continued sexual harassment and abuse after learning of Defendant Osborne’s

actions. She further argues that she adequately pled supervisory liability against these

Defendants, emphasizing her allegations that they were aware of Defendant Osborne’s misconduct

and did nothing, despite their legal obligation to report and/or investigate. She argues that

qualified immunity is not available because it is clearly established that the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against sexual harassment in the educational setting,

as well as deliberate indifference to such harassment. The Plaintiff contends that the intent

element of her equal protection claim is satisfied by her allegations of deliberate indifference and

of customs, policies, and practices carried out by the Defendants that constitute disparate treatment

of female students. Finally, she argues that the facts that support deliberate indifference also

support punitive damages, and the claim for punitive damages should be allowed to proceed.

1 As with the motions to dismiss filed by Bridge Valley and Defendant Osborne, the Court will not further address

the arguments regarding claims that were not asserted in the Amended Complaint.

7

Violation of a student’s “Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right to be free from

sexual harassment in an educational setting” may be remedied through a claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 where officials are alleged to have acted under color of state law. Jennings v. Univ. of N.

Carolina, 482 F.3d 686, 701 (4th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff must show that the individual(s) alleged

to have engaged in sexual harassment were state actors, that they harassed the plaintiff because of

sex, and that “the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to interfere unreasonably with

her educational activities.” Id. The standard for a § 1983 sexual harassment claim follows the

same framework as a Title VII claim, and Title VII caselaw may be applicable. Id. at 701.

The doctrine of respondeat superior is not available for § 1983 claims, but defendants may

be subject to supervisory liability. Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir.2001). To

establish supervisory liability, a Plaintiff must show:

(1) that the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his

subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed “a pervasive and

unreasonable risk” of constitutional injury to citizens like the

plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor's response to that knowledge was so

inadequate as to show “deliberate indifference to or tacit

authorization of the alleged offensive practices,”; and (3) that there

was an “affirmative causal link” between the supervisor's inaction

and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.

Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1994); (reaffirmed in Baynard, 268 F.3d at 235).

Deliberate indifference may be shown through failure to investigate, failure to take action to

remedy the harassment, or failure to otherwise respond in a manner designed to remedy the

violation. Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674, 691 (4th Cir. 2018).

The Plaintiff alleges that she reported Defendant Osborne’s sexual harassment and abuse

to multiple Bridge Valley employees, who responded that it was “how [Osborne] is” or were

otherwise dismissive. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 30.) Those responses could support a reasonable

8

inference that Bridge Valley personnel, including Defendants Haynes and Blankenbuehler, were

aware of Defendant Osborne’s reputation for engaging in sexual misconduct with female students.

The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Haynes and Blankenbuehler learned of her allegations

and took no action. She alleges that they took no action after Defendant Osborne was charged

with battery in relation to sexual battery, harassment, and/or assault against another student.

There was no interview, no investigation, no leave or adverse employment action against

Defendant Osborne. Instead, L.T. remained exposed to Defendant Osborne’s sexual abuse and

harassment, as well as retaliation, as she continued taking the courses necessary for her educational

and career goals. Those allegations adequately set forth the elements of a supervisory liability

claim. If proven, the Plaintiff’s factual allegations would establish that Defendants Haynes and

Blankenbuehler had actual knowledge that Defendant Osborne was sexually abusing and harassing

L.T., that they behaved with deliberate indifference and permitted the misconduct to continue, and

that their failure to act resulted in L.T.’s continued exposure to Defendant Osborne’s abuse. A

fact-finder could infer discriminatory intent from their failure to respond to sexual harassment of

female students. Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674, 703 (4th Cir. 2018).

Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has stated a claim under § 1983 against Defendants

Haynes and Blankenbuehler in their individual capacities.

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense intended to shield public officials from civil

suits arising out of their performance of job-related duties. See, e.g., Pearson v. Callahan, 555

U.S. 223, 231–32 (2009). Defendants asserting a qualified immunity defense first bear the burden

of “demonstrating that the conduct of which the plaintiff complains falls within the scope of the

defendant’s duties.” In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 594 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks

9

omitted.) The defense of qualified immunity is available unless the official “knew or reasonably

should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate

the constitutional rights of the plaintiff….” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982)

(internal emphases omitted). Officials are protected even if they make reasonable mistakes of

fact or law, so long as they do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231–32. “A constitutional right is ‘clearly established’ when its contours

are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

right.” Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted).

The Court finds that the right to be free from sexual discrimination and harassment at an

educational institution is clearly established. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555

U.S. 246, 257 (2009). It is also clearly established that responding to complaints of sexual

harassment with deliberate indifference violates that right. Feminist Majority Found, 911 F.3d at

705; Jennings, 482 F.3d at 701. The “sparseness” of the allegations here, as argued by the

Defendants, is a function of the current phase of proceedings: the Plaintiff will be required to come

forward with evidence to support her factual allegations following discovery, but she need not

provide evidence at the pleading stage. Thus, the motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity

should be denied.

Finally, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss or strike the claim for punitive damages

should likewise be denied. “The callous indifference required for punitive damages is essentially

the same as the deliberate indifference required for a finding of liability on the § 1983 claim.”

Cooper v. Dyke, 814 F.2d 941, 948 (4th Cir. 1987). Therefore, the factual allegations that the

10

Court found sufficient to state a claim for supervisory liability, including the deliberate

indifference element, are sufficient, at this stage, to support the claim for punitive damages.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, after thorough review and careful consideration, the Court ORDERS that

Defendants Ken Haynes and Carla Blankenbuehler’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

(Document 28) be DENIED and that Bridge Valley Community and Technical College Board of

Governors’ Motion to Partially Dismiss Amended Complaint and to Dismiss and/or Strike

Plaintiff's Punitive Damages Demand (Document 26) and Defendant Jerry C. Osborne’s Partial

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Document 30) be TERMINATED as moot.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to

any unrepresented party.

ENTER: — September 11, 2026

Dire. Benger’

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

11