Westminster Lawsuit

Case 2:18-cv-00186-DB Document 2 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 28
DALE H. BOAM, Bar No. 10384

Attorney for Plaintiffs
4776 South Wander Lane
Salt Lake City Utah 84117
Telephone: (801) 815-2547
Fax No.: (801) 278-3368
e-mail: dboam@comcast.net
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
KENNEDY FLAVIN, an individual
COMPLAINT
Petitioner,
vs. Civil No.
WESTMINISTER COLLEGE, a
Judge
Utah Corporation and Institution of
Higher Education
Jury Trial Requested
Respondent.
COME NOW, Plaintiffs KENNEDY FLAVIN (hereinafter “Ms. Flavin”)
a natural person, by and through her attorney, THE LAW OFFICE OF
DALE H BOAM, P.C., and for her claims for relief against Defendant
WESTMINISTER COLLEGE (hereinafter “Westminster”), a Utah
Corporation; and allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiff, Kennedy Flavin is woman who is Deaf and who uses
American Sign Language as her principal means of
communication.
2. Defendant Westminster College is Utah Institution of higher
education that receives federal funding including but not limited to
federally subsidized student loans.
3. This is an action involving claims under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 (hereinafter, “Title
IX”), arising out of sex discrimination, hostile education
environment, unreasonable response and retaliation, as well as
violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 29
U.S.C. § 794a, for failure to make campus security accessible to
student Plaintiff Kennedy Flavin who is Deaf, and forcing her to
withdraw from the Defendant Westminster College.
4. Plaintiff Ms. Flavin reported Title IX violations of sex discrimination,
unreasonable response and harassment, including intimidation
steaming from Defendant Westminster College imbedding
violations of her rights under Title IX by failing to establish
protections between her and the perpetrator of a sexual assault
upon her when Defendant Westminster College knew such
2
protections were needed and while a protective order was in
place.
5. Such imbedded violations include but are not limited to failing to
inform personnel and staff of the need to keep the perpetrator at
least 100 feet from the Plaintiff (under the reasoning that the
perpetrator’s privacy should be protected), placing the perpetrator
of a sexual assault against the Plaintiff, Ms. Flavin, in a housing
unit that is physically closer that is allowed by the protective order
(the Defendant Westminster College unreasonably choose to
measure the distance by the length of a sidewalk with a 90 degree
turn instead of the actual distance between the housing units.
This allows the perpetrator to literally look in the Plaintiffs window),
and other failures or omissions to take steps to protect the Plaintiff
as required by Title IX.
6. Finally Defendant Westminster failed or refused to accommodate
Plaintiff Ms. Flavin’s disability resulting in a legitimate safety
concern.
7. The Title IX office of Defendant Westminster College and other
administration under the Defendant Westminster College instead
of properly handling the matter, engaged in deliberate indifference
3
to Plaintiff’s rights, including subjecting Plaintiff to an unreasonable
and hostile environment by reason of her gender amounting to
discrimination based on sex as well as discrimination based on her
disability.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Plaintiff Kennedy Flavin (Ms. Flavin) is a citizen of the State of
Utah, and at all relevant times resided therein.
9. Defendant, WESTMINSTER COLLEGE ("Westminster") is an
institution of higher education located in Salt Lake City, Utah. On
information and belief, Defendant Westminster is subject to the
implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 because Defendant
Westminster receives federal funding and financial assistance
within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) and is otherwise
subject to Title IX and Section 504
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
11. Venue of this action lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391,
as the Defendant is a citizen of Utah and the events and
omissions giving rise to this action occurred within the jurisdiction
of this Court.
4
FACTS
12. Ms. Flavin is an elite level lacrosse player. She was All Region
her junior year, 2nd team all-State her senior year and a member
of the U17 Utah lacrosse team (only 23 players from Utah were
selected). Moreover, she was only Deaf player in the state of Utah.
13. Ms. Flavin excels academically maintaining high marks and honors
through her high-school years.
14. Ms. Flavin was highly sought after by colleges and universities for
not only her athletics but also academics.
15. In the Summer of 2014, Plaintiff Ms. Flavin began a relationship
with the Perpetrator of the eventual sexual assault.
16. Ms. Flavin is Deaf and unable to speak verbally. Ms. Flavin
communicates using American Sign Language.
17. Despite promising to do so, the Perpetrator never learned ASL
and the two only communicated through text message.
18. On August 4, 2014, the Perpetrator having turned 16 years old
came to Ms. Flavin’s home. He ordered her to do “something
special” for him for his birthday. Ms. Flavin assumed he meant
kissing. Soon the Perpetrator took Ms. Flavin to her bedroom and
forced himself upon her. Ms. Flavin pushed him away and through
5
both hand gestures and body language and noises of protest
made it very clear that she I did not want to have sex with him. The
Perpetrator continued to force himself upon her and had
intercourse with her by force completing all legal elements of rape.
19. After this event the Plaintiff broke off all relationship with the
Perpetrator.
20. The Plaintiff felt guilt and shame over the sexual assault
perpetrated against her and kept the events hidden from her family
and friends.
21. Moreover, the Plaintiff knew that reporting the incident and the
subsequent investigation would be difficult physically, because of
the communication barrier resulting from her Deafness, which
added to her increasing emotional distress.
22. Later in the same year the Plaintiff was attending an event at a
local high school, as she was walking down the hall someone
grabbed her arm and as she turned to look she saw it was the
Perpetrator. The Plaintiff had an emotional breakdown and panic
attack. Seeing that the Plaintiff was in distress a friend forced the
Perpetrator to let go of the Plaintiff’s arm and the Plaintiff ran and
hid.
6
23. At the insistence of her friend the Plaintiff Ms. Flavin finally told
someone the events of August 4, 2014. With the support of her
friend Ms. Flavin was able to tell her father.
24. Ms. Flavin’s father, Michael Flavin, supported her in reporting the
events to the police and Ms. Flavin began to receive therapy and
counselling.
25. As a result of a plea barging the Perpetrator eventually “pled
guilty” (or the equivalent thereof in juvenile court) to sexual battery
and unlawful sexual misconduct with a minor. As a condition of
probation, the court entered a no-contact against the Perpetrator.
26. Upon graduating from high school, the Plaintiff, a gifted student
and athlete, was awarded both academic and athletic scholarships
by Westminster College. In April 2017, the Plaintiff committed to
play Lacrosse for Westminster College with scholarships totaling
over $19,000.00 per year.
27. Westminster College’s smaller class sizes are conducive to her
needs as a Deaf student. Westminster had a mature and well-
trained group of interpreters in place. Furthermore, Westminster
has the only Division 2 Women’s Lacrosse team in the state of
Utah.
7
28. In addition to the benefits stated, Ms. Flavin’s head coach from
three of her teams over 3 years (Brighton High School, Under 17
State of Utah select team and Mamanci Black-the premier girls
travel team for the State of Utah), Maggie Herrneckar is now an
assistant coach at Westminster. Ms. Herrneckar has experience
implementing accommodations for on field communication with
Ms. Flavin and provided extra time and mentorship so Ms. Flavin
could live her dream of being a Women’s Lacrosse player and take
full advantage of the scholarship offered her by Defendant
Westminster.
29. However, in August 2017, the Plaintiff learned that shortly after
she had announced her commitment to play Lacrosse for
Westminster, the Perpetrator abandoned his plans to enlist in the
Marines would now also be attending Westminster College.
30. Upon learning that the Perpetrator would follow her to Westminster
all of the shame, guilt, and fear the Plaintiff felt in 2014 came
rushing back.
31. The Plaintiff then learned that the no-contact order issued as a
condition of the Perpetrator’s probation had expired.
8
32. The Plaintiff immediately filed a request for Civil Stalking
Injunction, requesting that the Perpetrator be restrained from going
near her home, school, car, etc. On August 10, 2017, the court
granted a Temporary Stalking Injunction.
33. A requirement of the Stalking Injunction states that if the
Perpetrator attends Westminster College, he is mandated to keep
at least 100 feet away from the Plaintiff at all times and must to
withdraw himself from any class or activity both are attending.
34. All history and documentation of the court case and orders were
provided and properly filed with Westminster College and have at
all relevant times been in the possession of the Defendant’s Title
IX office and relevant administration.
35. The Plaintiff began to feel a measure of relative safety after being
assured these protections would be in place.
36. However, the Perpetrator joined the Men’s Lacrosse team at
Westminster virtually assuring that he would be in the same
buildings, meetings, and practice spaces as the Plaintiff.
37. Almost from the moment the Perpetrator signed on to play
Lacrosse Defendant Westminster was resistant to aid in enforcing
the temporary order stating privacy concerns for the Perpetrator.
9
38. The Perpetrator was placed in on-campus housing next door to
the dorm Ms. Flavin was assigned. Ms. Flavin’s dorm assignment
was based on her dorm being the only on-campus housing having
installed features to accommodate her Deafness (visual alarms
and other visual features). She must be in that dorm to be
accommodated.
39. There is no reason to house the Perpetrator in the dorm he was
assigned other than convenience to Westminster. The
Perpetrator’s is assigned to housing where he can, quite literally,
look in his victim’s window which is hostile and menacing on its
face.
40. When Plaintiff and her father brought these issues to the
administration at Westminster College, including the office
responsible to implement Title IX, again Westminster took the
position that they could not disrupt the Perpetrator’s privacy. They
seemed focused on the value of the Perpetrator as member of the
Men’s Lacrosse team and stymied by their obligations because
incident occurred when he was a minor.
41. Furthermore, it was and remains Westminster’s position that
although the dorm buildings are little more that arms-length from
10
each other, and have windows that look into each other, the
distance of the sidewalk from the front door of the Plaintiff’s
housing unit, which proceeds outward and then makes a ninety
degree turn before continuing to the front of the Perpetrators
housing unit is over 100 feet. The sidewalk, not the physical dorm
rooms.
42. There have been incidents where Westminster’s failure to protect
Ms. Flavin has placed her in proximity of less than one hundred
feet from the Perpetrator. Each incident has been played off as
“innocent,” but are actually violations to the temporary stalking
order imbedded by Defendant Westminster due to its failure or
refusal to adhere to a policy of protecting the Plaintiff or even
focus on the safety of the Plaintiff over the privacy of the
Perpetrator.
43. Each incident is compounded by Westminster protecting the
Perpetrator’s privacy at the expense of a woman who has
communication barriers leaving her vulnerable at all times because
she will have difficulty explaining her danger to the uninformed
staff and teachers.
11
44. For example, Westminster scheduled both the Plaintiff and the
Perpetrator to attend the same Freshman orientation meeting.
When the meeting was over the Plaintiff realized the Perpetrator
had been almost directly behind her.
45. Both the Plaintiff and the Perpetrator were scheduled by
Westminster to have athletic physicals at the same time when Ms.
Flavin complained her physical was rescheduled to the time set for
the women’s basketball team, but the Perpetrator was allowed to
stay with his teammates.
46. The Plaintiff has felt trapped by the Perpetrators presence at other
campus activities, including those required by reason of her
position as a college athlete and some scheduled by the
Defendant Westminster, wherein she was unable to go into the
activity or unable to leave without confronting the Perpetrator, and
unable to explain her dilemma to staff by reason of her Deafness.
47. Remembering that she is Deaf and communicates though
American Sign Language in such situations she has no option to
seek the assistance of a campus employee to intercede and ask
the Perpetrator to leave when such incidents occur.
12
48. When the Plaintiff and her father brought these and similar
incidents or imbedded violations to the attention of Westminster
College they were told to contact campus security to intervene.
49. Unfortunately, campus security at Westminster has no mechanism
in place for a student who is Deaf, and cannot call using the
telephone, to contact them. Despite having made a request for an
accommodation Defendant Westminster College has failed or
refused the accommodate Deaf students by establishing a means
to contact campus security through text or other means of
accessible communication.
50. When the Plaintiff and her father explained this to Westminster
their solution was for the Plaintiff to contact the Salt Lake City
police to intervene, an option which denies her equal access to
programs and services afforded her non-disabled peers and
requiring a public police intervention and the accompanying public
shaming and feeling of scandal attached thereto each time one of
these “incidents” occurs.
51. Furthermore, the option of only calling the police leaves her
unprotected on-campus until the police arrive (when campus
security is moments away) and places her in a more vulnerable
13
condition and subject to higher risks to her safety than her non-
disabled peers by reason of her disability. Not just in regard to this
situation, the failure or refusal to accommodate the Plaintiff’s
communication need places her at higher risk than her non-
disabled peers at all times.
52. Due to the presence of her Perpetrator, and Westminster College’s
indifference to her safety as well as the Defendant College’s
tendency to actively downplay her complaints, the Plaintiff rarely
slept in her dorm, attended few school activities, and had a harder
and harder time being on campus let alone attend class. She was
ever more anxious each time an “incident” occurred and
Defendant Westminster College showed little interest addressing
even the imbedded violation it created. Defendant College and its
agents began to exhibit annoyance at her continuing to bring it up.
53. On more than one occasion Defendant Westminster College
stated how valuable the Perpetrator was to it Lacrosse program,
which could only be interpreted to mean that the Plaintiff’s her
value as a female athlete was less than that of her Perpetrator.
54. On September 6, 2017 the court determined to leave the
temporary stalking injunction in place with the understanding that
14
the Plaintiff’s lawyer and the Perpetrator’s lawyer would craft an
agreement in lieu of a civil order that the court would sign.
55. As of the date of this Complaint the Perpetrator has not agreed to
the language of the substitute agreement wanting basically a gag
order on Ms. Flavin and any actual restrictions (including distance
restrictions) removed. The language now proposed by the
Perpetrator is more protective of him than of Ms. Flavin.
56. Despite the Plaintiff virtually begging for simple safety procedures
to be implemented by Westminster College they have continued to
downplay her concerns and ignore her rights under both Title IX
and Section 504.
57. The Plaintiff has come to understand that Westminster College’s
lack of interest in enforcing and subversion of the clear wording of
the temporary stalking injunction as well as its failure or refusal to
make contacting campus security accessible to students who are
Deaf makes it generally unsafe for her to continue attending
Westminster College, and so she had to withdraw.
58. When she withdrew she lost the benefit of her scholarships and
has had to transfer to another college with all the costs involved.
Mr. Flavin recently sold his house and moved to a small condo in
15
order to pay the costs of her university studies without the
scholarships.
59. Moreover, Ms. Flavin’s goals to play for Westminster have been
derailed and she has had to start over with a new team and has to
build a new system of accommodations for communication.
60. Ms. Flavin would return to school and the sport she loves but for
Defendant Westminster College’s failure or refusal to comply with
Title IX and Section 504.
61. The acts and omissions of Westminster College amount to
constructive expulsion of Ms. Flavin because of her status as a
victim of sexual assault, her being a female athlete asking for
protection from a Perpetrator who plays men’s sports in violation of
Title IX and by reason of her Deafness for its failure or refusal to
make access to campus security accessible to persons who are
Deaf
COUNT I 
Title IX-20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
Clearly Unreasonable Response, Sex Discrimination
62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein and realleges the
allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 61 above as though set forth
fully herein.
16
63. At all relevant times Defendant Westminster College had actual
knowledge of: the facts of the Perpetrator’s sexual assault on the
Plaintiff; that a temporary civil stalking order against the
Perpetrator was in place at all relevant times and the requirements
thereof; the fact that the Perpetrator was actually on-campus and
likely to be within the proximity to the Plaintiff prohibited by the
temporary stalking order almost any time they were both present in
their respective on-campus housing or present within the athletics
department; that the actual physical distance between the
Perpetrators housing and the Plaintiffs fell within the zone
prohibited by the temporary stalking order; that students are not
prohibited from leaving the sidewalks nor are there any penalties
or barriers from them doing so thus sidewalks are merely
suggestions of walking paths not definitive measurements of
distance for the purposes of a temporary stalking order; that
communication with campus security was inaccessible to the
Plaintiff if the Perpetrator violated the temporary stalking order;
that statements by staff and employees of Westminster placing the
value of the Perpetrator as an athlete or his privacy as a male
student above the value of her safety were gender discrimination
17
in violation of Title IX; that the Plaintiff reported to them actual
instances of the Perpetrator coming within the zone forbidden by
the temporary stalking order; and, that the Plaintiff left school by
reason of Westminster College’s acts or omissions in violation of
Title IX.
64. Defendant Westminster College’s responses to the Plaintiff’s
complaints of discriminatory treatment and other listed violations
were clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.
65. The risks to Plaintiff’s safety, the loss of her ability to continue
attending Defendant Westminster College, and the actions and
inactions of Defendant Westminster College were so severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it barred Plaintiff’s access
to educational opportunities and benefits as well as economic
losses in the amount of the scholarship and other definable
present and future educational, financial and actual benefits.
66. Plaintiff was subjected to gender discrimination because of
Defendant Westminster College’s deliberate indifference to known
acts of gender discrimination against Plaintiff, including the
decision to not address Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the
proximity of the Perpetrators housing; lack of access to campus
18
security and other acts and omissions amounting to Defendant
Westminster College’s deliberate decision not to provide Plaintiff
with safety measures and accommodations so that she could
safely pursue her studies; Defendant College’s deliberate decision
not to take seriously Plaintiff’s complaints about default violations
of the temporary stalking order in which Defendant Westminster
College became an active participant by scheduling both the
Perpetrator and the Plaintiff to attend at the same time; Defendant
College’s deliberate decisions not to comply with its own policies
regarding Title IX, as well as the legal requirements of Title IX; and
Defendant College’s deliberate decisions to do nothing to
eliminate the risk of harm posed by the Perpetrator nor prevent
reoccurring violations or address its effects.
67. If Defendant College had not been deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s allegations of that she was unsafe by reason of the
violations of temporary stalking injunction imbedded by its own
failure or refusal to address the proximity of the Perpetrators
housing and other safety protocols and comments amounting
gender discrimination and retaliation, and instead complied with its
own policies and federal law by promptly and properly
19
investigating Plaintiff’s claims while protecting Plaintiff’s safety,
Plaintiff would have been able to remain at the school, progressing
toward her degree and having the benefit of her scholarship.
Instead, Plaintiff was forced to leave the school by Defendant
College’s actions and omissions.
68. As a result of Defendant College’s deliberate indifference and
wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, loss
of educational opportunities and benefits, injuries, damages and
losses, including, but not limited to, emotional distress, fear,
anxiety and trauma; lost future earnings and earning capacity; the
actual loss of the monetary benefit of the scholarship she had
been awarded and damage to and delays in her pursuit of
undergraduate education.
COUNT TWO
Title IX-20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 
Hostile Education Environment, Sex Discrimination
fully herein.
70. Title IX provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o person in the United
States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in,
20
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.”
71. Plaintiff’s gender is protected by Title IX.
72. Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment, sex discrimination
and retaliation that were so severe, pervasive and objectively
offensive that she was denied access to educational opportunities
and benefits at Defendant College.
73. Defendant College was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s known
sexually hostile education environment in which she suffered as a
result of its failure to institute any accommodations for Plaintiff’s
safety, including, but not limited to: (i) excluding her assailant from
housing within 100 feet of the Plaintiff’s; (ii) not providing an
accessible means to contact campus security; (iii) not maintaining
strict protocols requiring that the not come within a certain distance
of Plaintiff when scheduling events; (iv) failing or refusing to
counsel staff that the value of a male athlete does not trump the
safety of female or even inform them of the risk the perpetrator
presented for the Plaintiff; (v) failing or refusing to properly
investigate or act upon Plaintiff’s complaints of Title IX violations;
21
and (vi) failing or refusing to provide viable alternatives for Plaintiff
to continue to attend classes at the Defendant school and maintain
her scholarship there-at.
74. As a result of Defendant College’s acts of deliberate indifference,
Plaintiff was forced to leave the school and lost her educational
opportunities at the Defendant College as well as suffering
economic losses in the amount of the scholarship and other
definable present and future educational, financial and actual
benefits.
75. As a result of Defendant College’s acts of deliberate indifference,
Plaintiff was rendered incapable of pursuing her educational
opportunities.
76. As a result of Defendant College’s failure to maintain an
environment for students free from unlawful sex discrimination in
all aspects of the educational experience, Plaintiff has suffered,
and continues to suffer, loss of educational opportunities and
benefits, injuries, damages and losses, including, but not limited
to, emotional distress, fear, anxiety and trauma; lost future
earnings and earning capacity; actual lost of the monetary benefit
22
of the scholarship she had been awarded and damage to and
delays in her pursuit of her undergraduate education.
COUNT THREE 
Title IX-20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
Retaliation
fully herein.
78. Plaintiff engaged in actions protected by Title IX when she
complained about and/or objected to Defendant College regarding
the imbedded violations of the temporary stalking order.
79. Plaintiff further engaged in actions protected by Title IX when she
complained and/or objected to Defendant College’s failure or
refusal to address the safety risk posed by her lack of an
accessible means of contacting campus security, specifically in
light of the Perpetrators proximity to the Plaintiff’s housing and
within the athletics department.
80. Because of Plaintiff's protected actions, Defendant College
retaliated against Plaintiff by, among other things, treating her in a
hostile manner, unfairly applying Defendant’s policies to her as
compared to her Perpetrator including placing the value of his
23
privacy over her safety, thereby constructively expelling her from
the Defendant College.
81. As a result of Defendant College’s unlawful retaliation against
Plaintiff in violation of Title IX, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues
to suffer, loss of educational opportunities and benefits, injuries,
damages and losses, including, but not limited to, emotional
distress, fear, anxiety and trauma; lost future earnings and earning
capacity; lost of actual monetary benefit in the form of the
scholarship and damage to and delays in her pursuit of
undergraduate education.
82. The Plaintiff has been forced to engage the services of an attorney
Therefore, she is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs
and any other damages that the court sees fit and equitable.
COUNT FOUR 
Section 504 - 29 U.S.C. § 794a et seq.
Discrimination Based on Disability
fully herein.
84. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the mandates of
Section 504 and its regulations by: (1) denying the Plaintiff the
24
benefits of the Defendant’s programs or services and activities
because she is Deaf, (2) denying the Plaintiff equal access to
educational opportunities solely by reason of their disabilities, (3)
denying Plaintiff reasonable and effective communication
(specifically but not limited to campus security) through the use of
appropriate auxiliary aids and services, (4) failing or refusing to
provide accommodations in a timely manner, engaging in a
dialogue, or securing comparable accommodations; (5) utilizing
criteria and methods of administration that discriminate against the
Plaintiff, or subject the Plaintiff to a separate or different benefit by
reason of her Deafness and defeat or substantially impair the
accomplishment of the objectives of higher education, (6) Utilizing
policies, practices and procedures are facially discriminatory and
tend to screen the Plaintiff out by reason of her Deafness, and (7)
failing or refusing to provide services in the most integrated
setting.
85. Defendants have not educated their agents or employees
regarding Section 504, nor have they corrected discriminatory
policies and practices in order to comply with Section 504 and its
regulations.
25
86. The acts or omissions of the Defendant (or its agents) caused and
continues to cause the Plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm in the
nature of humiliation, limitation of freedom, risks to her safety and
other forms of intangible injuries to their dignity interests. Each of
the discriminatory conditions identified above presents a palpable
and substantial deprivation of a degree of the Plaintiffs' much-
cherished independence. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff
relating to the Defendant’s discrimination are ongoing until the
discriminatory conditions are corrected.
87. Plaintiff has incurred actual costs and real financial losses
because she is Deaf by reason of the Defendant’s acts or
omissions including the loss of the scholarship, lost employment
opportunities, the cost incident to transferring to another college or
College, the cost of treatment and therapy for the severe
emotional distress incident to these events (much more than
typical persons could be expected to endure) and other actual and
definable costs for which she should be compensated in the form
of compensatory damages.
26
88. The Plaintiff has been forced to engage the services of an attorney
Therefore, she is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs
and any other damages that the court sees fit and equitable
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kennedy Flavin respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court grant the following relief:
(a) Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant

Westminster College on all Counts herein;  
(b) Award Plaintiff injunctive relief to be determined at trial requiring

Defendant Westminster College to comply with Title IX;
(c) Injunctive relief including an order requiring Westminster College

to enact guidelines under Title IX wherein Protective Orders must be
followed in a manner that effectuates the protective purpose
regardless of the method used to measure implementation;
(d) Award Plaintiff Injunctive relief to be determined at trial requiring

Defendant Westminster College to comply with Section 504
(e) Injunctive relief including the implementation of a communication

system whereby students who are Deaf or possess communicative
disabilities can contact campus security in equity with their non-
disabled peers, including, but not limited to text messaging or
emergency stations on campus;
(f) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages against Defendant

Westminster College in an amount to be determined in a jury trial but
in an amount no less than the scholarship Plaintiff was awarded plus
any costs associated with seeking her education at a similar
institution;
27
(g) Award the Plaintiff any and all other monetary damages that may
be available under law or equity including punitive damages in an
amount to be determined if allowed by law;
(h) For Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, including litigation expenses, and

costs of suit; and
(i) For such other and further relief (both under law and under the
Court’s broad equitable jurisdiction) deemed appropriate by the
Court.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED  
A jury trial is demanded by Plaintiff as to all matters triable to a jury.  
DATED this __27____ day of ______February_______________________, 2018.
___/s/ Dale H Boam_______________________

DALE H. BOAM, Bar No. 10384
Attorney for Plaintiffs
4776 South Wander Lane
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117
Telephone: (801) 815-2547
Fax No.: (801) 278-3368
e-mail: dboam@comcast.net
28
Case 2:18-cv-00186-DB Document 2-1 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Kennedy Flavin Westminster College
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Salt Lake County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Salt Lake County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Law Offices of Dale H Boam P.C.
4776 South Wander Lane, Salt Lake City Utah 84117
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 and 29 U.S.C. § 794a
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
discrimination based on gender and disability discrimination when it failed or refused to protect her from a known perpat
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. injunc$175,000.00 JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
02/27/2018 /s/ Dale H Boam
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17) Case 2:18-cv-00186-DB Document 2-1 Filed 02/28/18 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Westminster Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Westminster Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:18-cv-00186-DB Document 2 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 28

DALE H. BOAM, Bar No. 10384

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

vs. Civil No.

COME NOW, Plaintiffs KENNEDY FLAVIN (hereinafter “Ms. Flavin”)

a natural person, by and through her attorney, THE LAW OFFICE OF

WESTMINISTER COLLEGE (hereinafter “Westminster”), a Utah

Corporation; and allege as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Kennedy Flavin is woman who is Deaf and who uses

American Sign Language as her principal means of

2. Defendant Westminster College is Utah Institution of higher

education that receives federal funding including but not limited to

federally subsidized student loans.

3. This is an action involving claims under Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688 (hereinafter, “Title

IX”), arising out of sex discrimination, hostile education

environment, unreasonable response and retaliation, as well as

violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 29

U.S.C. § 794a, for failure to make campus security accessible to

student Plaintiff Kennedy Flavin who is Deaf, and forcing her to

withdraw from the Defendant Westminster College.

4. Plaintiff Ms. Flavin reported Title IX violations of sex discrimination,

unreasonable response and harassment, including intimidation

steaming from Defendant Westminster College imbedding

violations of her rights under Title IX by failing to establish

protections between her and the perpetrator of a sexual assault

upon her when Defendant Westminster College knew such

protections were needed and while a protective order was in

5. Such imbedded violations include but are not limited to failing to

inform personnel and staff of the need to keep the perpetrator at

perpetrator’s privacy should be protected), placing the perpetrator

of a sexual assault against the Plaintiff, Ms. Flavin, in a housing

unit that is physically closer that is allowed by the protective order

(the Defendant Westminster College unreasonably choose to

measure the distance by the length of a sidewalk with a 90 degree

turn instead of the actual distance between the housing units.

This allows the perpetrator to literally look in the Plaintiffs window),

and other failures or omissions to take steps to protect the Plaintiff

as required by Title IX.

6. Finally Defendant Westminster failed or refused to accommodate

Plaintiff Ms. Flavin’s disability resulting in a legitimate safety

7. The Title IX office of Defendant Westminster College and other

administration under the Defendant Westminster College instead

of properly handling the matter, engaged in deliberate indifference

to Plaintiff’s rights, including subjecting Plaintiff to an unreasonable

and hostile environment by reason of her gender amounting to

discrimination based on sex as well as discrimination based on her

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Plaintiff Kennedy Flavin (Ms. Flavin) is a citizen of the State of

Utah, and at all relevant times resided therein.

9. Defendant, WESTMINSTER COLLEGE ("Westminster") is an

institution of higher education located in Salt Lake City, Utah. On

information and belief, Defendant Westminster is subject to the

implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 because Defendant

Westminster receives federal funding and financial assistance

within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) and is otherwise

subject to Title IX and Section 504

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

as the Defendant is a citizen of Utah and the events and

omissions giving rise to this action occurred within the jurisdiction

through her high-school years.

not only her athletics but also academics.

15. In the Summer of 2014, Plaintiff Ms. Flavin began a relationship