Statement

University offers statement, background on today's ruling en banc by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, today (April 9, 2007) remanded the case of Melissa Jennings vs. the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for trial. The University is not able to discuss the details of the case, but it may be helpful for reporters to understand the context of such a ruling.

The University filed a motion seeking summary judgment in April of 2004.  Summary judgment is appropriate when, after reviewing the record as a whole, the court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party that filed the motion (in this case, the University) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence has to be construed in the light most favorable to the other party (in this case, Melissa Jennings).  

On Oct. 27, 2004, the United States Federal District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the University’s motion for summary judgment. Melissa Jennings then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A three-judge panel at the Fourth Circuit heard the appeal and ruled in the University’s favor on April 11, 2006. The Fourth Circuit concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Women’s Soccer Coach Anson Dorrance’s remarks or conduct created a sexually hostile educational environment under Title IX.  

Melissa Jennings appealed again and asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, to hear her case.  That case was argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 25, 2006. It is the decision of that court that was handed down today.  

Today’s decision says that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Melissa Jennings, the court believes that she has alleged sufficient facts that she has a right to have her case heard by a jury. Thus, it has remanded the case for trial.

A summary judgment gives the plaintiff the full benefit of the facts in the summary judgment record. In other words, the court assumes that the facts are as the plaintiff alleges. The University will have the opportunity to dispute those facts at trial – and fully intends to do so.

###

News Services contact: Lisa Katz, (919) 962-2093 or lisa_katz@unc.edu