A federal appeals court has revived a former Piedmont High School football player’s Title IX lawsuit, ruling that allegations involving a football hazing ritual known as “keying” could constitute sexual harassment rather than ordinary locker-room horseplay.
In a published opinion filed June 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned a lower court’s dismissal of claims brought by a former Piedmont football player identified in court records as C.W. and sent the case back to federal district court for further proceedings.
Chief Judge William Pryor, writing for the court, described the allegations as involving “a campaign of emasculatory harassment culminating in an attempted sexual assault.”
“Because C.W. alleged a plausible claim of sexual harassment, we vacate and remand,” Pryor wrote.
The ruling allows C.W. to pursue a Title IX claim against the Piedmont City School District and an Equal Protection claim against former football coach and athletic director Steve Smith.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools and educational programs that receive federal funding. While often associated with athletics, the law also requires schools to address sexual harassment and discrimination.
The lawsuit stems from events that allegedly occurred during C.W.’s freshman season in 2022.
According to the court’s opinion, “keying” was a long-standing practice within the football program in which older players allegedly targeted younger teammates by “forcing a car or truck key into a player’s anus and twisting it.”
The opinion notes that three students were charged with assault in 2020 after an alleged keying incident involving another player and that the incident resulted in a civil lawsuit against the district and Smith.
According to court records, C.W. alleged he was subjected to repeated harassment by teammates and was threatened with the keying ritual. According to the complaint, the harassment continued after the incident, and C.W. later transferred to another school.
The appeals court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the allegations were more likely the result of anti-freshman bullying than sex discrimination.
Instead, the Eleventh Circuit found the complaint plausibly alleged that C.W. was targeted because he failed to conform to masculine stereotypes and that the alleged conduct was inherently sexual in nature.
The court also rejected arguments that the conduct amounted to football “horseplay.”
“Mindful of the Supreme Court’s instruction to consider social context, we hold that a factfinder could infer from the facts as pleaded that the alleged conduct is not ‘simple teasing or roughhousing,’ but instead sexual harassment,” Pryor wrote.
The opinion further states that an attempted sexual assault is inherently sexual harassment and that the allegations, if proven, could satisfy Title IX’s requirements for severe and pervasive harassment.
The Eleventh Circuit also reinstated C.W.’s Equal Protection claim against Smith, finding the complaint plausibly alleged that he was deliberately indifferent to known sexual harassment.
The ruling does not determine whether the allegations are true or whether any defendant is liable. Instead, it allows the claims to move forward and returns the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for additional proceedings.
The full opinion is available through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for readers interested in reviewing the court’s analysis and the allegations discussed in the case.
Sherri Blevins is a staff writer for 256 Today.
Got a tip for OTR? Send your tip to [email protected] with related photo/video, your name, phone number, and e-mail address.
