Feminist Majority Foundation v. Hurley

911 F.3d 674 (2018)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Feminist Majority Foundation v. Hurley

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
911 F.3d 674 (2018)

  • Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD

Facts

Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) and Feminist United on Campus (Feminist United) (plaintiffs) were student organizations at the University of Mary Washington (UMW). In November 2014, UMW’s student body authorized male-only fraternities on campus. At the townhall meeting, a Feminist United member questioned the allowance of the fraternities given research that showed how Greek life increased the number of sexual assaults. Afterwards, the issue was debated on Yik Yak, a now-defunct social-media application where users posted comments anonymously. On November 21, 2014, UMW students yelled “fuck the feminists” at Feminist United students leaving a meeting with UMW’s Title IX coordinator, Dr. Leah Cox. After a video emerged of the men’s rugby team performing a chant that glorified violence against women, Feminist United members met with UMW President Hurley (defendant). On March 11, 2015, Hurley held a townhall, where Hurley downplayed the rugby team’s actions. After outrage, Hurley suspended all rugby activities and directed the rugby team to undergo anti–sexual assault and violence training. The rugby team lashed out by posting physically and sexually threatening messages about the feminist students on Yik Yak. On March 25, 200 examples of violent Yik Yak messages were presented to Hurley, and the feminist students asked him to bar access to Yik Yak on campus. However, UMW took no such actions. On April 17, 2015, a Feminist United member was killed by her roommate. In the immediate aftermath, Feminist United members did not know that the death was not connected to the threatening Yik Yak messages. FMF and Feminist United sued Hurley for violations of Title IX to the Education Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint. FMF and Feminist United appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Agee, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership