Negligence; Whether plaintiffs established that defendant had a duty to protect a student from sexual assaults; Whether plaintiffs showed defendant’s conduct was “outrageous” to support a state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Whether plaintiffs established a claim for sex discrimination under Michigan’s Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); MCL 37.2102(1) & 37.2401

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ (Villareal and Chen) state-law claims relating to sexual assaults perpetuated by other students while attending defendant-Hillsdale College, holding that plaintiffs failed to show that Hillsdale owed them a duty to protect them from assault. Two Hillsdale College students, who alleged they were sexually assaulted by other students, sued Hillsdale for state-law negligence, IIED, and discrimination after they became dissatisfied with Hillsdale’s investigative and disciplinary response. The student that assaulted Chen was apparently not punished for his actions and remained at the school. Villarreal’s assailant was “put on social probation, required to do community service, and suspended indefinitely from the baseball team.” However, the College would not expel him “because, during the incident, he eventually ‘stopped’ when Villarreal told him to.” Villarreal countered that “she had never consented in the first place.” Her assailant was also allowed on the baseball team the next season. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. It first considered whether the district court erred by dismissing plaintiffs’ state negligence claim. It explained the necessary elements of a Michigan negligence claim, the first of which is whether Hillsdale owed plaintiffs a duty to prevent sexual assaults committed by other students. It noted that Michigan does not impose a duty to protect against a third-party criminal act, and that there was neither a “dependent relationship” between parties, nor were the assaults “foreseeable.” Thus, Hillsdale had no duty to protect plaintiffs under Michigan law. The court declined to certify the case for review before the Michigan Supreme Court where the plaintiffs filed their case in federal court and then sought state remedies. It then considered their IIED claim under Michigan law and found they failed to show the “‘extreme and outrageous’” conduct necessary to support a claim for IIED under Michigan law. Plaintiffs’ last claim was for sex discrimination under the ELCRA, “which prohibits both ‘private and public schools from discriminating against individuals on the basis of sex.’” However, it found they failed to establish a prima facie case under both “disparate treatment” and the “disparate impact” theories.