Christine M. Durham (938) James W.

McConkie (2156)
J. Frederic Voros, Jr. (3340) Bradley H. Parker (2519)
Dick J. Baldwin (14587) W. Alexander Evans (12085)
ZIMMERMAN BOOHER PARKER & MCCONKIE
Felt Building, Fourth Floor 5664 South Green Street
341 South Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84123
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 264-1950
(801) 942-0200 jwmcconkie@utahlawhelp.com
cdurham@zbappeals.com bparker@utahlawhelp.com
fvoros@zbappeals.com alex@sjatty.com
dbaldwin@zbappeals.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

JILL McCLUSKEY and MATTHEW COMPLAINT

McCLUSKEY, individually and for and on
behalf of LAUREN McCLUSKEY, deceased, 1. Negligence
2. Equal Protection Under Utah
Plaintiffs, Constitution (conscious acquiescence/
treatment based on gender stereotype)
v. 3. Equal Protection Under Utah
Constitution (training, supervision,
STATE OF UTAH (including the University instruction, discipline)
of Utah, University Department of Housing 4. Equal Protection Under Utah
and Residential Education and University Constitution (unconstitutional policy/ failure
Department of Public Safety), DALE to create, implement or enforce policy)
BROPHY, KORY NEWBOLD, KAYLA 5. Survival
DALLOF, MIGUEL DERAS, AARON 6. Wrongful Death
NELSON, TODD JUSTENSEN, ABI 7. Vicarious Liability
KENNEDY, JENNI SCHREINER,
HEATHER McCARTHY, EMILY (Tier 3)
THOMPSON and JANE/JOHN DOES 1-10. (Jury Trial Demanded)

Defendants. Case No.

Judge:
 Plaintiffs, Jill McCluskey and Matthew McCluskey, by and through their counsel of

record, Bradley H. Parker, James W. McConkie and W. Alexander Evans of the law firm of

Parker & McConkie, and Christine M. Durham, J. Frederic Voros, Jr. and Dick J. Baldwin of the

law firm of Zimmerman Booher, hereby bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of

Plaintiff Lauren McCluskey, deceased, against Defendant State of Utah (including the University

of Utah, University Department of Housing and Residential Education and University

Department of Public Safety) (collectively the “University”) and against Defendants Dale

Brophy, Kory Newbold, Kayla Dallof, Miguel Deras, Aaron Nelson, Todd Justensen, Abi

Kennedy, Jenni Schreiner, Heather McCarthy, Emily Thompson and Jane/John Does 1-10

(“Individual Defendants”), alleging their deliberate indifference and failure to intervene and

prevent the tragic and untimely death of Lauren McCluskey. The allegations are as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiffs in this case are the parents of Lauren McCluskey. Lauren was a

University of Utah student who was brutally murdered on the University’s campus despite her

repeated pleas for help and protection from the University. If the University had taken Lauren

more seriously, her murder could have been avoided. This case is a vehicle for systemic change.

First, the State cannot continue asserting immunity when its actions result in the wrongful death

of its citizens. Second, the State must respect the right to gender equality guaranteed by the Utah

Constitution.

2. In the weeks leading up to her murder, Lauren was being sexually and physically

abused, stalked, and threatened by her eventual killer. Lauren and her friends told University

officials and police about the abusive behavior and their fears that it could escalate into greater

2
violence. Instead of intervening and protecting Lauren from her killer, the University officials

and police ignored, dismissed, and avoided her requests for help. They did so based on gender

stereotypes and indifference to the risks that women experience when they are suffering from

domestic violence. They did not believe Lauren, take her or her friends‘ complaints seriously,

properly investigate their claims, or take readily available actions they were authorized and

obligated to take to remove the threat from the campus. Indeed, her killer, Melvin Rowland, was

a felon who was on parole after serving a decade in prison for a sex crime and could have been

detained immediately based on his possession of a firearm, sexual abuse, stalking, extortion, and

impersonating an officer. As a result of the University’s negligence and deliberate indifference

predicated on gender-based assumptions and biases, Lauren was senselessly murdered by the

man from whom she had repeatedly sought protection and about whom she had repeatedly

complained to the University.

3. In a separate lawsuit pending in federal court, Lauren’s parents assert a variety of

violations of federal law. In this lawsuit, they assert violations of state law.

4. First, Lauren’s death constituted a wrongful death resulting from Defendants’

negligence under Utah’s statute and constitution. Notwithstanding case law from the Utah

Supreme Court holding that the State is immune for causing wrongful deaths, Tiede v. State, 915

P.2d 500 (Utah 1996), plaintiffs are prepared to demonstrate that the case in question must be

overturned because it relied on an incorrect assessment of the history of Utah’s wrongful death

legislation. The Utah Constitution prohibits the legislature from abrogating the right of action for

wrongful death. And at the time the Utah Constitution was drafted, that right of action included

the right to assert a wrongful death claim against the State. Defendants therefore cannot claim

3
immunity for their negligence that resulted in Lauren’s death. Indeed, the Utah Constitution

intended to ensure that no one--including state police--enjoys immunity for negligently causing

the death of another.

5. Second, Lauren’s parents assert a claim under the Equal Rights Clause of the Utah

Constitution, Utah Const. art. IV, § 1, asserting that Lauren was denied the rights guaranteed to

her under that clause to enjoy all civil rights and privileges equally and without regard to her sex.

Despite that guarantee, Lauren did not enjoy equally her right to—among others—fair treatment

by public officials and law enforcement, and to have her complaints taken seriously without

being dismissed due to gender stereotypes. She was also deprived of her right to enjoy equally

her public education at the State’s flagship school. Instead, Lauren’s complaints were treated

dismissively because of the University’s practice and policy of ignoring and disbelieving

women, deliberate indifference to domestic violence that disproportionately affects women, its

failure to competently investigate her complaints and those of others and its failure to protect her

based on outdated, dangerous, and misogynistic attitudes toward women. Plaintiffs allege and

will demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct deprived Lauren of her safety, her educational

opportunities, and ultimately her life and future. Lauren’s parents have likewise been deprived of

Lauren’s companionship, love and affection, and the fulfillment of the hopes that all parents

cherish for their children’s futures.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Plaintiff Lauren McCluskey, now deceased, was at all times pertinent hereto a

resident of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

4
 7. Plaintiff Jill McCluskey is and was at all times pertinent hereto a resident of

Pullman, Whitman County, Washington and was the natural parent and heir of Plaintiff Lauren

McCluskey.

8. Plaintiff Matthew McCluskey is and was at all times pertinent hereto a resident of

Pullman, Whitman County, Washington and was the natural parent and heir of Plaintiff Lauren

McCluskey.

9. Defendant State of Utah (including the University of Utah, University Department

of Housing and Residential Education (“Department of Housing”) and University Department of

Public Safety (“UUPS”)) (collectively the “University”) is and was at all times pertinent hereto,

a government entity as defined by Utah Code §63G-7-102(4) and a public university with its

principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, where it resides.

10. Defendant Dale Brophy was at all times pertinent hereto, the UUPS Chief of

Police and an employee and/or agent of the University who, upon information and belief, resides

in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

11. Defendant Kory Newbold is and was at all times pertinent hereto, a Sergeant with

UUPS and an employee and/or agent of the University who, upon information and belief, resides

in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

12. Defendant Kayla Dallof was at all times pertinent hereto, a Detective with UUPS

and an employee and/or agent of the University who, upon information and belief, resides in Salt

Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

5
 13. Defendant Miguel Deras was at all times pertinent hereto, an Officer with UUPS

and an employee and/or agent of the University who, upon information and belief, resides in Salt

Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

14. Defendant Aaron Nelson is and was at all times pertinent hereto, an Officer with

UUPS and an employee and/or agent of the University who, upon information and belief, resides

in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

15. Defendant Todd Justesen is and was at all times pertinent hereto, the Associate

Director Leadership Team (“ADLT”) with the Department of Housing and an employee and/or

agent of the University who, upon information and belief, resides in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake

County, State of Utah.

16. Defendant Abi Kennedy is and was at all times pertinent hereto, the Assistant

Director for Conduct Management (“ADCM”) with the Department of Housing and an employee

and/or agent of the University who, upon information and belief, resides in Salt Lake City, Salt

Lake County, State of Utah.

17. Defendant Jenni Schreiner is and was at all times pertinent hereto, the Assistant

Director for Residential Education (“ADRE”) with the Department of Housing and an employee

and/or agent of the University who, upon information and belief, resides in Salt Lake City, Salt

Lake County, State of Utah.

18. Defendant Heather McCarthy is and was at all times pertinent hereto, the Area

Coordinator (“AC”) with the Department of Housing and an employee and/or agent of the

University who, upon information and belief, resides in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State

of Utah.

6
 19. Defendant Emily Thompson is and was at all times pertinent hereto, the Resident

Director (“RD”) with the Department of Housing and an employee and/or agent of the University

who, upon information and belief, resides in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

20. Upon information and belief, Defendants Jane/John Does are and were at all times

pertinent hereto, employees and/or agents of the University who reside in Salt Lake City, Salt

Lake County, State of Utah.

21. The injuries giving rise to this Complaint occurred on the University of Utah

campus in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

22. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Utah Code § 78A-5-

102(1).

23. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-3-307.

24. Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Utah Code § 63G-7-402 et seq.

25. Plaintiffs have filed an undertaking in the amount of $300 as required by Utah

Code § 63G-7-601.

26. Plaintiffs represent that they will post a bond in an amount determined by the

Court as required by Utah Code § 78B-3-104.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

27. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all previous paragraphs above as though

fully set forth below.

28. In 2018, Plaintiff Lauren McCluskey (“Lauren”) was a 21-year-old senior at the

University of Utah where she was a successful student and track athlete.

7
 29. Originally from Pullman, Washington, at all times pertinent hereto, Lauren lived

on the University of Utah campus at the Shoreline dormitory, which is supervised and managed

by the University of Utah Department of Housing and Residential Education (“Department of

Housing”).

Melvin Rowland’s Escalating Pattern of Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Stalking,

Sexual Harassment and Abuse Against Lauren McCluskey

30. On or about September 3, 2018, Lauren met Melvin Rowland, a 37 year-old felon,

sex offender, con man and master manipulator who was on parole after serving over a decade in

prison. He had convinced Lauren and others that he was a 28 year-old student named “Shawn

Fields” who was studying computer science at a community college and working part-time in

security. Significantly, Melvin Rowland was over six feet tall, weighed approximately 250

pounds and was a large, powerful and intimidating individual who worked as a bouncer at a local

night club.

31. On or about September 10, 2018, Lauren began to date Melvin Rowland and

concern amongst Lauren’s friends began to develop almost immediately.

32. Among other things, Lauren’s friends noticed that Melvin Rowland was

possessive, controlling and manipulative. For instance, Melvin Rowland routinely told Lauren

what to wear, he would go through Lauren’s text messages and emails and he would often accuse

her of lying and betrayal, which is a common tactic employed by abusers. Furthermore, Melvin

Rowland would not allow Lauren to go to social events or associate with her friends without him

present because he was jealous and possessive. Melvin Rowland would often start telephone

conversations with a hostile quiz demanding that Lauren explain what she was doing, where she

was and who she was with.

8
 33. Melvin Rowland also stalked Lauren by observing her from afar when they were

not together. In fact, Melvin Rowland told Lauren he was stalking her in order to scare her into

thinking that he could be watching her at any given moment. He used this control tactic to

ensure that Lauren also would provide honest responses when he quizzed her on her whereabouts

and activities. Melvin Rowland often became enraged and would yell at Lauren and accuse her

of being unfaithful if she did not answer his calls immediately or if she was late meeting him.

This left Lauren frantic when Melvin Rowland would call and in a panic before meeting with

him, fearful that she might ignite his anger somehow.

34. Melvin Rowland also demanded that Lauren pick him up at work when his shift

ended at 2:00 a.m. and he frequently borrowed Lauren’s car while effectively living with Lauren

at her dormitory on the University’s campus. Melvin Rowland expected Lauren to run his

errands, buy him gifts, cook and clean for him. Melvin Rowland demanded sex from Lauren and

manipulated her into doing things that were inconsistent with her personality and character.

Among other things, Melvin Rowland would get upset when Lauren wanted to attend church on

Sundays – something that she had done consistently her whole life.

35. After dating Melvin Rowland for a couple of weeks, Lauren’s friends noticed

changes in her affect and appearance. Lauren had lost weight, she looked exhausted and stressed

out, her eyes were glassy and hollow, she stopped wearing makeup, she was not taking care of

herself, she was not paying attention to her studies, she was not eating well, her enthusiastic

demeanor disappeared and she seemed depressed and defeated. Most concerning of all, Lauren’s

friends noticed unexplained marks and bruising on Lauren’s body.

9
 36. On or about September 23, 2018, in violation of his parole agreement, and despite

the fact that he was a “Category I restricted person” who had been previously convicted of a

“violent felony,” Melvin Rowland took Lauren to shoot guns with his friends.

37. On or about September 26, 2018, Lauren called her close friend and fellow

student, Alexandria Mumphery, expressing sadness and frustration with Melvin Rowland’s

controlling behavior. During that call, Lauren mentioned that Melvin Rowland was getting her a

gun sometime in the very near future so that she could protect herself against advances from

other men. Already concerned by Melvin Rowland’s behaviors toward Lauren and after noticing

striking changes in Lauren’s appearance, demeanor and personality develop over the course of a

very short period of time, Alexandria was alarmed when she heard that Melvin Rowland would

be getting a gun for Lauren. Accordingly, Alexandria consulted two more of Lauren’s close

friends and fellow students, Alejandra Sanchez and her sister, Carmen Sanchez. Alejandra and

Carmen had observed the same behavior and had the same concerns as Alexandria, which were

significantly enhanced when they too learned about the gun.

Actual Notice to the University that Melvin Rowland was Committing Dating Violence, Domestic
Violence, Stalking, Sexual Harassment, and Other Abuse against Lauren McCluskey

38. In fact, their concerns were so great that, on September 30, 2018, Lauren’s friends

sent Alejandra to seek help from the Graduate Assistant (“GA”) for Shoreline dormitory,

Diamond Jackson (“Jackson”). Significantly, GA Jackson, Alejandra and Carmen were close

friends and GA Jackson knew both Lauren and Alexandria personally.

39. Alejandra told GA Jackson that she had spoken with Alexandria and what they

had spoken about, specifically indicating that they were both very worried about Lauren. Among

10
other things, Alejandra told GA Jackson that Lauren was in an unhealthy and potentially harmful

relationship with an older man who was possessive, controlling and manipulative. She told GA

Jackson about Melvin Rowland’s delusions of infidelity, his jealous rages and his hostile

quizzes, providing specific examples and anecdotes. She told GA Jackson about the changes in

Lauren’s personality and appearance and how Lauren had stopped taking care of herself.

Moreover, Alejandra reported unexplained marks and bruises on Lauren’s body, indicating

potential physical abuse.

40. Among other things, Alejandra told GA Jackson that Melvin Rowland had been

stalking Lauren and that Melvin Rowland made Alejandra feel very uncomfortable. Indeed,

Alejandra told GA Jackson she was afraid that Melvin Rowland was stalking her as well by

tracking her whereabouts when she was with Lauren.

41. Alejandra also told GA Jackson that Melvin Rowland had access to

compromising images of Lauren and that she was concerned that Melvin Rowland might use

them to exploit Lauren.

42. Alejandra also told GA Jackson that Melvin Rowland had practically been living

on campus at Lauren’s dormitory and that he was planning to get Lauren a gun to keep with her.

Indeed, Alejandra told GA Jackson that she feared for Lauren’s life after observing several

indicators of an abusive relationship and after learning that Melvin Rowland had access to a gun

that could enter the picture sometime in the very near future.

43. Accordingly, on September 30, 2018, GA Jackson called the Resident Director

(“RD”), Emily Thompson (“Thompson”), to pass Alejandra’s report to the appropriate officials.

At that time, GA Jackson assumed the University would remove Melvin Rowland from campus,

11
as that was within its authority and he was a non-student. However, RD Thompson was new to

her position and was not sure what to do about the situation.

44. That same day, GA Jackson also called the Area Coordinator (“AC”), Heather

McCarthy (“McCarthy”), to provide the same report. During this call, GA Jackson offered to go

directly to Lauren’s dormitory, to immediately investigate the situation and to call UUPS. AC

McCarthy prohibited GA Jackson from taking these actions, claiming instead that GA Jackson’s

concerns were speculative and that the University needed to respect Lauren’s privacy – thereby

perpetuating a dangerous myth about intimate partner violence. Upon GA Jackson’s urging, AC

McCarthy agreed to revisit the matter the next day at an area meeting.

45. At the area meeting on October 1, 2018, GA Jackson provided more detail to AC

McCarthy and to RD Thompson regarding the report concerning Lauren. Among other things,

GA Jackson told AC McCarthy and RD Thompson that Melvin Rowland had isolated Lauren,

that Melvin Rowland would aggressively demand to know her whereabouts at all times and that

Lauren was terrified of angering him – all classic signs of dating violence and domestic violence

readily identifiable by trained officials. GA Jackson also told AC McCarthy and RD Thompson

that Lauren was in danger of being sexually exploited and harassed given Melvin Rowland’s

possession of compromising images.

46. GA Jackson also told AC McCarthy and RD Thomson that Melvin Rowland had

been stalking Lauren, tracking her whereabouts and using this information to manipulate and

control Lauren. In fact, GA Jackson told AC McCarthy and RD Thompson that Alejandra also

feared that Melvin Rowland was stalking her and keeping tabs on her when she was around

Lauren.

12
 47. Additionally, GA Jackson told AC McCarthy and RD Thomson that Lauren was

acting out of character, that she was exhausted most of the time, that her demeanor had changed,

that she was not taking care of herself or eating right and that she had unexplained marks and

bruises on her body, indicating potential physical abuse.

48. Finally, GA Jackson told AC McCarthy and RD Thompson that Melvin Rowland

had been living with Lauren at the Shoreline dormitory and that he planned to acquire a gun to

keep with her on campus, which indicated an escalating pattern of violence and risk.

49. In response to the information that they had obtained from GA Jackson at the area

meeting, AC McCarthy and RD Thompson claimed that there was nothing that the University

could do about the situation due to privacy concerns and thus suggested waiting until Lauren

reached out for help. GA Jackson objected to waiting, so AC McCarthy and RD Thompson

placated her by claiming that they would consider following up with regard to the guest policy

and counseling with regard to the implications of possessing a firearm on campus. AC

McCarthy and RA Thompson then asked GA Jackson to “keep an eye” on Lauren and to initiate

an electronic CARE referral so that the CARE team could discuss Lauren’s situation at the

upcoming CARE meeting, which was scheduled for October 8, 2018.

50. This proposed course of action was clearly unreasonable in the light of the known

circumstances as it in no way addressed the dating violence, domestic violence, sexual

harassment, stalking and other abuses by Melvin Rowland, who was a non-student continuing to

freely access campus to commit these crimes and abuse against Lauren without any efforts by the

University to stop him.

13
 51. On or about October 2, 2018, during their weekly meeting, AC McCarthy met

with Assistant Director for Residential Education (“ADRE”) Jenni Schreiner (“Schreiner”) and

told ADRE Schreiner the information that she had learned about Lauren McCluskey. While AC

McCarthy and ADRE Schreiner agreed that the situation was concerning, they did not believe

that any housing policies were being violated except perhaps the guest policy and they did not

want to take action unless Lauren personally sought help. While they discussed the possibility of

outreach, ADRE Schreiner declined to take any action and indicated that she wanted to consult

Associate Director Leadership Team (“ADLT”) Todd Justesen (“Justesen”).

52. Upon information and belief, technical difficulties prevented GA Jackson from

submitting a CARE referral, so she sent AC McCarthy an email instead on October 2, 2018.

However, instead of appropriately submitting a CARE referral, on October 3, 2018, AC

McCarthy merely forwarded GA Jackson’s email to ADRE Schreiner.

53. On or about October 3, 2018; ADRE Schreiner shared the information that she

had learned about Lauren’s situation with ADLT Justensen and the Assistant Director of

Conduct Management (“ADCM”) Abi Kennedy (“Kennedy”); however, no action was taken

and only empty promises were made indicating that the University would “keep Lauren on their

radar.” While ADCM Kennedy ordinarily managed CARE referrals and was responsible for

doing so, ADRE Schreiner indicated that she was managing the case with AC McCarthy.

Accordingly, ADCM Kennedy declined an active role, ignoring her responsibility. Moreover,

ADRE Schreiner was not qualified to handle the matter, did not understand the complexity of the

situation and failed to appropriately transfer the case to ADCM Kennedy.

14
 54. On or about October 4, 2018, ADRE Schreiner met with AC McCarthy to discuss

the meeting with ADLT Justesen and ADCM Kennedy. ADRE Schreiner told AC McCarthy

about the plan to keep Lauren on the Department of Housing’s radar, told AC McCarthy to direct

GA Jackson to make contact with Lauren and told AC McCarthy that they would follow up with

a CARE conversation.

55. However, the Department of Housing did not keep Lauren on its radar.

Moreover, neither GA Jackson, AC McCarthy, RD Thompson, ADRE Schreiner, ADCM

Kennedy nor ADLT Justesen followed up with Lauren regarding the guest policy or the

implications associated with possessing a firearm on campus. Indeed, no University officials

followed up with Lauren in any regard.

56. In fact, ADRE Schreiner failed to provide any instruction about how to pass

information obtained by GA Jackson up the chain of command and then left town for several

weeks without attempting to follow up. Moreover, AC McCarthy failed to make contact with

GA Jackson before GA Jackson left town for fall break. Indeed, AC McCarthy never made

contact with GA Jackson or made any attempt to follow up even after GA Jackson returned to

campus.

57. ADLT Justensen, ADCM Kennedy, ADRE Schreiner, AC McCarthy and RA

Thompson understood the reasons why the others refused to respond to the report of sexual

harassment and they ratified the reasoning when they refused to respond after learning about

Lauren’s situation.

Melvin Rowland Escalates his Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Stalking,

Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Lauren McCluskey

15
 58. Sometime between October 3 and October 4, 2018, Lauren discovered that

Melvin Rowland had been using a fake name and that he had lied about his age. Lauren

confronted Melvin Rowland with the information that she had discovered and learned that

Melvin Rowland had many identities. Upset and afraid, Lauren immediately left the campus for

Washington State on October 5, 2018 to visit her family during fall break.

59. On October 8, 2018, AC McCarthy forwarded the email that she had received on

October 2, 2018, and which outlined the concerns about Lauren, to ADCM Kennedy. Despite

the fact that she had not yet made contact with GA Jackson or made any attempt to follow up or

otherwise direct GA Jackson to make contact with Lauren, AC McCarthy left town.

60. Additionally, on October 8, 2018, the Department of Housing, by and through

ADLT Justensen, ADCM Kennedy, ADRE Schreiner, AC McCarthy, RD Thompson, and/or

Jane/John Doe, cancelled a previously scheduled CARE meeting intended to address Lauren’s

situation and to develop a follow-up plan. Accordingly, the University and its officials failed to

develop any follow-up plan and no further action was taken despite the ongoing risk to Lauren’s

safety.

61. In fact, ADRE Schreiner directed AC McCarthy to follow up with GA Jackson

and then left town for several weeks without handing the case off to a superior, without checking

to see whether AC McCarthy had in fact followed up with GA Jackson and without following up

to see if GA Jackson had obtained any information. GA Jackson left town before AC McCarthy

could direct her to contact Lauren and then AC McCarthy left town without attempting to follow

up with GA Jackson and without ever checking to see whether GA Jackson had obtained

additional information even after GA Jackson returned from her trip.

16
 62. No University official or representative kept an eye on Lauren or successfully

reached out to Lauren to see if she needed help, nobody confronted Lauren about the guest

policy so that Melvin Rowland could be removed from the dormitory and from campus, nobody

counseled Lauren with respect to the implications of having a gun on campus so that Melvin

Rowland would not have easy access to a gun on campus and nobody otherwise investigated the

reports of stalking, harassment or other potential acts of domestic violence and dating violence,

which were strongly indicated by the multitude of common warning signs, to ensure Lauren’s

safety and well-being. Finally, nobody from the Department of Housing ever contacted the

University’s Department of Public Safety (“UUPS”) to report that Melvin Rowland was stalking,

sexually harassing and possibly also physically abusing Lauren as part of an escalating pattern of

dating violence and domestic violence and that he intended to bring a gun on campus.

63. Upon information and belief, the Department of Housing had a policy of calling

UUPS only as an absolute last resort, even in a dangerous situation, because UUPS had a

reputation for rarely responding to calls for assistance and, even when officers did respond, they

were often unhelpful and their tactics were routinely counterproductive.

64. Understandably suspicious after discovering that Melvin Rowland had lied about

his name and age, Lauren and her friend, Regina Snyder, investigated the matter while in

Washington State on fall break. After performing a cursory search for Melvin Rowland’s name

on the internet, Lauren and Regina were horrified to discover that Melvin Rowland was a violent

felon and convicted sex offender. Realizing that she needed to end her relationship with Melvin

Rowland immediately, but afraid that he would react violently, Lauren consulted Alexandria,

17
who advised her to break off the relationship in a public place for safety purposes. Alexandria

updated Alejandra and Carmen, who were also away on fall break.

65. Lauren returned to campus on October 9, 2018, with a plan to break off the

relationship with Melvin Rowland in a public place. While waiting for him to arrive, Lauren was

talking to Alexandria on the telephone and she became both startled and frightened when she

observed Melvin Rowland peering through her window. Accordingly, Lauren opened the door

and confronted Melvin Rowland, intending to end the relationship then and there. However,

Melvin Rowland entered Lauren’s room without permission and demanded to know who Lauren

had been speaking with on the telephone. He effectively held Lauren hostage in her dorm room

by refusing to leave and aggressively choosing to stay through the night. During that time,

Melvin Rowland tried to manipulate Lauren by claiming he had not committed the crime for

which he was convicted and that he had been set up. He continued to insist that he had not lied

about his age.

66. Fearing for Lauren’s safety, Alexandria tried to stay in contact with Lauren by

telephone through the night. According to Alexandria, Lauren sounded scared and could not

speak openly because Melvin Rowland would only allow her to use the telephone when he was

present to control her. In an attempt to get Melvin Rowland to leave peacefully the next day,

Lauren lied, told Melvin Rowland that she needed to go to track practice and offered him her car

to run some errands.

67. Later that evening, Lauren received text messages, purportedly from Melvin

Rowland’s friends (which she suspected were most likely from Melvin Rowland himself), telling

Lauren that she had broken Melvin Rowland’s heart, indicating that Melvin Rowland knew she

18
had lied about going to track practice and offering to return Lauren’s car on Melvin Rowland’s

behalf. Among other things, the text messages were harassing, threatening and abusive, saying:

“Hey Bitch your car is @ Stadium Key in passenger seat on floor. This was only a favor for

Sean. He never told you he is in the Military reserves like us. Good luck idiot!” and “Go kill

yourself.”

68. Through information and belief, Melvin Rowland’s electronic communications

with Lauren originated on or within the immediate vicinity of the University of Utah campus,

concerned events occurring on campus and specifically targeted a student living on campus.

69. Through information and belief, Melvin Rowland used the University of Utah’s

wireless network in communicating electronically with Lauren.

70. On October 10, 2018, Melvin Rowland called Lauren offering to return her car in

person. Afraid that Melvin Rowland was trying to lure her to an isolated area and fearing for her

safety, Lauren called her mother, Jill McCluskey (“Mrs. McCluskey”) who in turn called UUPS.

Mrs. McCluskey, who was very upset and worried, explained the circumstances, told UUPS that

Melvin Rowland was a sex offender and requested a police escort to help Lauren safely recover

her car from Melvin Rowland. UUPS transferred Mrs. McCluskey to campus security, who

arranged and provided a security escort, and Lauren retrieved her car without incident, but

neither UUPS nor any other official from the University provided any follow-up to address the

pattern of stalking, harassment, domestic violence, dating violence or the ongoing and escalating

risk to Lauren.

71. On October 11, 2018, Lauren received more text messages, purportedly from

Melvin Rowland’s friends (which she suspected were most likely from Melvin Rowland

19
himself), indicating that Melvin Rowland was suicidal, that he had been in an accident, that it

was Lauren’s fault and that Lauren consequently needed to visit Melvin Rowland in the hospital.

Later, Lauren received more text messages indicating that Melvin Rowland had died and that

Lauren needed to go to the funeral. In response, Lauren stated that the police were involved and

to stop contacting her.

72. On October 12, 2018, Lauren received more harassing text messages, purportedly

from Melvin Rowland’s friends (which she suspected were most likely from Melvin Rowland

himself), indicating that “Shawn is gone because of you! Don’t come to his funeral. We had his

phone texting you. Cold Bitch.” Again, Lauren responded by saying “Please don’t contact this

number. I got police involved.” Lauren then received a response saying: “So do we.”

UUPS Continued to Act with Deliberate Indifference when Melvin Rowland

Escalated his Criminal Conduct to Murder Lauren

73. Suspicious that the text messages that she received on October 11 and 12, 2018

were another attempt to lure her away from campus into a trap, Lauren called UUPS and

reported her concerns regarding the harassing text messages on October 12, 2018.

74. In response, UUPS acted with deliberate indifference by claiming there was

nothing that they could do to help and advising her to contact UUPS only if the situation

escalated, thereby ignoring Lauren’s report of stalking, dating violence, domestic violence,

sexual harassment, and ongoing efforts to potentially lure her into a harmful situation.

75. On October 13, 2018, Lauren contacted UUPS by telephone again to speak to an

officer with regard to the report that she had filed on October 12, 2018. On information and

belief, Lauren spoke to Officer Deras. Lauren explained that the text messages that she had

received on October 11 and October 12, 2018 were in fact sent by Melvin Rowland rather than

20
by Melvin Rowland’s friends, thereby indicating that Melvin Rowland was stalking her,

harassing her and attempting to lure and potentially hurt her. Lauren also reported that Melvin

Rowland had extorted her and that she had paid Melvin $1,000 that same morning after he had

threatened to publish and distribute compromising images of Lauren, some of which he had

obtained without her permission during the course of their relationship and which he used to

control her as part of his pattern of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and

stalking. Lauren also told UUPS that Melvin Rowland was demanding another $1,000 to refrain

from distributing embarrassing and exploitative videos that he claimed to have.

76. Fearing that her reports were not being taken seriously, Lauren then went with

Alexandria to the UUPS building in person on the morning of October 13, 2018 where they

spoke with, among others, Officer Deras and Officer Nelson. Despite the fact that UUPS has

several private rooms where they can discuss sensitive matters, the officers, including Officer

Deras and Officer Nelson, stood in front of Lauren and Alexandria and interviewed them as they

sat in the lobby of the station, demonstrating a complete lack of sensitivity and disregard for the

seriousness of the situation. During the interview, both Lauren and Alexandria described the

circumstances in some detail, telling UUPS how Melvin Rowland had lied about his name and

age, how they had discovered that Melvin Rowland was a felon and convicted sex offender, how

Melvin Rowland had scared Lauren by peeping through her window, how Lauren had ended her

relationship with Melvin Rowland, how Melvin Rowland had been stalking and harassing

Lauren since the breakup, how Melvin Rowland had access to a gun, how Melvin Rowland had

successfully extorted Lauren by causing her to pay him $1000 not to distribute a compromising

image and how he was currently attempting to extort Lauren again by seeking an additional

21
$1000 not to distribute a compromising video. Lauren also provided evidence in the form of text

messages and receipts indicating that she had in fact been extorted and she insisted that Melvin

Rowland was the culprit. In fact, Lauren produced text messages from Melvin Rowland’s

telephone that demonstrated that Rowland had participated and was personally involved in the

extortion.

77. Throughout their conversation with Lauren and Alexandria, Officer Deras and

Officer Nelson contacted the on call detective, Kayla Dallof, to update her with the information

that they had received.

78. UUPS officers, specifically including Officer Deras, Officer Nelson and Detective

Dallof ignored Lauren’s report of stalking and sexual harassment and ignored the warning signs

and patterns of domestic violence and dating violence by dismissing evidence that Melvin

Rowland had extorted Lauren with no investigation into the matter and suggesting instead that

Lauren was the victim of an online scam. UUPS also ignored the information indicating that

Melvin Rowland was a “Category I restricted person” who was prohibited from possessing a gun

or from even making arrangements to have a gun under his custody or control.

79. Despite the fact that Melvin Rowland was not a student at the University of Utah,

Officer Deras ran a check on Melvin Rowland’s name in the University student database,

incorrectly obtaining a report on a student with a similar name and wrongly concluding that

Melvin Rowland “seems like a good guy.” Again fearing that their reports were not being taken

seriously, Alexandria did a Google search, which immediately provided information to UUPS,

specifically including Officer Deras, Officer Nelson and Detective Dallof, indicating that Melvin

Rowland was a convicted felon and sex offender.

22
 80. Accordingly, UUPS ran a criminal history check for Melvin Rowland and

discovered his history of felony convictions, but failed to notice and/or obtain information

regarding his supervisory status or information that would have otherwise indicated whether

Melvin Rowland was currently on parole. This information would have allowed UUPS to take

action by reporting parole violations and provided additional reasons to detain Melvin Rowland

and arrest him.

81. Despite the fact that Lauren was the victim of the crime rather than a witness to

the crime, the officers, specifically including Officer Deras, Officer Nelson and Detective Dallof,

asked Lauren to complete a witness statement. As she was completing the witness statement and

attempting to provide thorough and complete information, the officers, specifically including

Officer Deras and Officer Nelson, rushed Lauren to finish up, telling her that they were only

concerned about the extortion and that she could just leave everything else about the stalking,

harassment, domestic violence and dating violence out of the statement. As Lauren and

Alexandria were leaving, the officers told them that they would follow up by October 16, 2018.

82. The officers then contacted Detective Dallof, who asked the officers to forward

the file and to obtain more information about the concerns. Lauren provided additional

information about the extortion to UUPS later that afternoon, along with a message indicating

that she was being threatened and blackmailed. Detective Dallof notified Sergeant Kory

Newbold of the investigation. Through information and belief, as the Chief of Police, Dale

Brophy was also aware of the investigation.

83. Based on the reports alleging stalking, harassment and other crimes that qualified

as domestic violence and dating violence, UUPS was required by law to, among other things,

23
“use all reasonable means to protect the victim and prevent further violence” and to “arrange,

facilitate, or provide the victim with immediate and adequate notice of the rights of victims and

of the remedies and services available to victims of domestic violence,” including but not limited

to information sufficient to obtain an order of protection or a stalking injunction from the courts.

Utah Code § 77-36-2.1; see also Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(17); 78B-7-408. However, UUPS did

nothing to protect Lauren or to prevent further violence. Moreover, UUPS failed to arrange,

facilitate or provide any notice to Lauren of her rights as a victim or of the remedies and services

that were available to her.

84. Still concerned that UUPS was not taking her reports seriously, Lauren called the

Salt Lake City Police Department (“SLCPD”) later in the evening on October 13, 2018 to report

her concerns regarding Melvin Rowland and her concern that UUPS had taken no action in

response to her criminal complaints, but SLCPD merely transferred Lauren back to UUPS, who

told her that her assigned officer would follow up.

85. However, instead of following up on Lauren’s report, Officer Deras directly

victimized Lauren by distributing the explicit images that she had provided to him in confidence

for evidentiary and investigatory purposes to one or more individuals who were not involved

with the investigation.

86. Moreover, Officer Deras kept the explicit images on his personal cell phone and

otherwise used the images for inappropriate personal purposes.

87. On October 15, 2018, Lauren tried to contact UUPS, but no one at UUPS

expressed any familiarity with her case.

24
 88. That same day, GA Jackson received an update from Alejandra and Carmen, who

had just returned from fall break. Alejandra and Carmen told GA Jackson that Melvin Rowland

had lied about his name and his age, that he was a convicted felon and sex offender, they told her

about the break-up, about the incident where Lauren needed a security escort to recover her car,

and about the harassing text messages. Alejandra and Carmen continued to give GA Jackson

frequent updates in the days that followed and during a subsequent conversation, they told GA

Jackson that Melvin Rowland had extorted Lauren.

89. Despite instructing GA Jackson to “keep an eye” on Lauren, nobody from the

Department of Housing ever followed up with GA Jackson or with anyone else to get an update.

Furthermore, GA Jackson did not share any of the updated information that she had received

with the Department of Housing or its officials because she mistakenly believed that there was

nothing that the University could do about the situation based on the Department of Housing’s

initial dismissive response. Moreover, GA Jackson’s direct superiors were out of town, had not

followed up with her and had not left her with instructions for how to pass information up the

chain of command in their absence.

90. On October 16, 2018, Lauren expected UUPS to follow up and provide an update

as promised, but nobody contacted Lauren. Indeed, from October 16 through October 19, 2018,

UUPS did nothing to investigate and took no action with regard to Lauren’s case even though

Lauren continued to send information to UUPS about her concerns during that period of time.

91. In fact, Detective Dallof failed to investigate or take any action with regard to

Lauren’s reports of sexual harassment because UUPS had assigned and instructed Detective

Dallof to immediately investigate a series of bicycle thefts instead.

25
 92. On October 19, 2018, Lauren started receiving text messages indicating that

Melvin Rowland knew about her contact with the police and Lauren feared that an insider at

UUPS had been secretly leaking information to him. Among other things, the text messages

said: “What did you tell the cops?” “We know everything!” and “Setting up people wasn’t

enough. Your Sex Offender ex-boyfriend. It will go viral today!”

93. Accordingly, on October 19, 2018, Lauren called SLCPD again concerned that

UUPS had not followed up regarding her case. Lauren also expressed concern that a potential

insider at UUPS had been providing information to Melvin Rowland. SLCPD then told Lauren

to contact UUPS and to speak with the detective in charge of her case.

94. Accordingly, Lauren contacted UUPS as SLCPD had advised her to do on

October 19, 2018. She told UUPS, specifically including Officer Deras and Officer Dallof, that

Melvin Rowland knew about her contact with the police – clearly indicating that Melvin

Rowland had been monitoring Lauren and her communications and continuing to stalk her.

Lauren also told UUPS that her parents were worried about her, hoping that the information

would cause them to take her case more seriously. In response, Detective Dallof finally

contacted Lauren for the first time and informed her that she was out of the office on vacation,

but would be back to follow-up on October 23, 2018. In fact, Detective Dallof had returned from

her scheduled time off on October 16, 2018. Detective Dallof also told Lauren to forward all

communications from Melvin Rowland in the meantime and to contact UUPS if she received any

communications that appeared to be an attempt to lure her somewhere. Among other things,

Lauren sent Detective Dallof an email with a screen shot indicating that Melvin Rowland was

aware of her attempt to involve the police.

26
 95. On October 20, 2018, Lauren sent Detective Dallof more information regarding

Melvin Rowland’s criminal history and offender details, including information indicating that

Melvin Rowland was on parole, but Detective Dallof failed to review the information that

Lauren sent until after Lauren was murdered.

96. On October 22, 2018, Lauren received a text message, purportedly from the

deputy chief of UUPS, which said: “Good Morning Lauren this is Deputy Chief Mclenon with

the University Police. I plan on calling you but I’m in a meeting at the moment. Can you come

to the station as soon as possingle [sic] there is something you need to see. I will go over the

detail when we you [sic] get here. Thanks.” Recognizing the text message as a potential attempt

by Melvin Rowland to lure her away from her dormitory, Lauren called UUPS to speak with

Officer Deras. She left messages three times over a two-hour period until he finally called her

back and she forwarded a screen shot of the text message via email to Detective Dallof. Officer

Deras identified the text message as a fake and told Lauren not to respond, but UUPS otherwise

did not investigate the matter and took no action in response to this violent felon and sex

offender’s attempts to lure Lauren away from her dormitory by impersonating a police officer.

97. Indeed, despite instructing Lauren to send information to her email, Detective

Dallof failed to check her email and did not receive Lauren’s report indicating that Melvin

Rowland had attempted to lure her away from her dormitory by impersonating a police officer

and thus UUPS took no meaningful action despite this serious situation.

98. Chief Brophy and Sergeant Newbold understood the reasons why Officer Deras,

Officer Nelson, Detective Dallof and other UUPS officers refused to respond to the reports of

27
sexual harassment and they ratified that reasoning when they refused to respond after learning of

the investigation.

99. On October 22, 2018, the Department of Housing finally held a CARE meeting to

discuss Lauren’s situation, but nobody at the meeting had investigated the matter, therefore

nobody had any additional information about recent events and, as a result, no action was taken

by the University or its officials. Indeed, AC McCarthy and ADRE Schreiner did not attend the

meeting because they were out of town and the Department of Housing had not invited GA

Jackson to participate in the CARE meeting. Moreover, despite asking GA Jackson to “keep an

eye” on Lauren, nobody from the Department of Housing contacted GA Jackson to see what she

had learned or to see whether GA Jackson had acquired additional information about the

situation.

100. Later in the evening on October 22, 2018, Melvin Rowland stalked Lauren,

hunted her down on the University campus and attacked her as she was returning from class and

talking to her mother, Jill McCluskey, on the telephone. Both Mrs. McCluskey and Mr.

McCluskey heard Lauren shout “No! No! No! No!” as a struggle ensued. Terrified, Mr.

McCluskey called 911 to express his fear that Melvin Rowland had kidnapped Lauren. Rather

than offering any assistance, the operator transferred Mr. McCluskey to UUPS. In fact, Melvin

Rowland had grabbed Lauren, forced her into a car that he had borrowed from a friend, shot her

seven times and left her to die. Melvin Rowland then called another woman who came to pick

him up, took him out to dinner and took him back to her home where he took a shower and

laundered his clothes.

28
 101. That night, UUPS finally investigated Melvin Rowland and discovered that he

was on parole, that he had multiple telephone numbers, that his telephone numbers had been

used to harass and extort Lauren, that he had borrowed a gun and a car and that he was expecting

the police to arrest him for extorting Lauren. When UUPS located Melvin Rowland using his

telephone, he ran and they pursued him into a church near the University where he committed

suicide by shooting himself in the head.

102. Based on the explicit and detailed reports that it had received from Lauren and her

friends, the University had actual knowledge that Melvin Rowland was a substantial risk to

Lauren and other students on campus.

103. The University also had general knowledge of a serious and obvious risk of

sexual harassment and domestic violence on its campus, but was deliberately indifferent to the

need to address the risk by implementing and enforcing policies and programs and providing

training, supervision, instruction, control and discipline.

The University’s Known Policy, Custom and Practice of Sex Discrimination

104. The University, by and through Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe, had an

unconstitutional custom and policy of deliberate indifference to reports of sexual harassment, an

unconstitutional custom and policy of treating women based on gender stereotypes and were

deliberately indifferent to other customs and policies that caused subordinates to violate Lauren’s

constitutional rights.

105. Among other things, UUPS responded with hostility toward women who reported

sexual harassment, treating them with disdain, minimizing their reports, expressing disinterest in

their reports, accusing them of fabricating their reports, blaming them for the harassment and

29
otherwise discouraging women from reporting the harassment or from taking action against their

harassers. In fact, a lieutenant at UUPS was well known for proclaiming, and would often so

proclaim, that women only reported sexual assault in situations where they “had a bad time

losing their virginity.”

106. When UUPS assigned officers to investigate reports of sexual harassment, the

officers often waited weeks before contacting the victim or initiating any investigation.

Moreover, the untimely investigations were often cursory and conducted with disdain. Officers

routinely failed to conduct personal face-to-face interviews with women who reported concerns

about interpersonal violence. Sometimes officers would not even take notes. In fact, sometimes

officers completely ignored investigatory assignments when those assignments would require

them to investigate an allegation of domestic violence.

107. Instead of investigating the harassers, UUPS routinely focused the investigations

on the victimized women, questioning the decisions that they had made prior to the harassment

with probing inquiries that reflected the skeptical nature with which they approached reports of

sexual harassment. For example, on one occasion, officers quizzed a rape victim for hours,

asking her about the color of the dress and the style of underwear she had been wearing, asking

her if she shared underwear with her roommates, asking her what brand of vodka she had been

drinking, how much she had drunk, who had purchased it and whether she had been a virgin

prior to the rape. Discouraged by the hostile treatment that she had received, the woman decided

not to pursue any charges against her harasser. UUPS treated other women who reported sexual

harassment in a similar manner.

30
 108. Indeed, on another occasion, a woman reported being brutally raped in her dorm

room. Traumatized and uncomfortable being alone with male officers, the victim requested an

advocate or the presence of at least one female staff member for her interview. UUPS denied the

request and interrogated the victim for six to eight hours, asking condescending and irrelevant

questions such as whether she was a virgin and whether she was in love with her rapist. UUPS

suggested that she had not really been raped, but instead had engaged in “rough sex” that she

now regretted. When the victim asked officers whether rape included nonconsensual sex,

officers responded by saying “we can debate all day about the definition nowadays, but

apparently now you need to have your mom’s permission slip to have sex.” UUPS also denied

the victim’s request to have forensic evidence recovered and preserved with a rape kit.

Moreover, University administration refused to provide accommodations after telling the victim

that she didn’t want to be seen as a “problem child” in the eyes of her professors.

109. Despite the hostile manner in which UUPS investigated women who reported

sexual harassment, UUPS routinely failed to contact or otherwise investigate the alleged harasser

and routinely failed to check for warrants or determine whether the alleged harasser was on

parole. For example, over the course of approximately six months, three separate women

reported that they had been sexually assaulted by the same man on campus. Despite interviewing

the victims, UUPS made no attempt to contact the alleged harasser or otherwise investigate the

incidents until the harasser sexually assaulted a fourth woman. The belated investigation

resulted in an arrest and the harasser ultimately pled guilty to three counts of forcible sexual

abuse. The failure to investigate the harasser in connection with the first three assaults was not

an isolated incident.

31
 110. Indeed, on another occasion, UUPS failed to investigate or respond in an

appropriate manner after receiving reports of a peeping tom on campus. The peeping tom

sexually assaulted another woman on campus three hours after the initial reports, but again the

university failed to investigate or respond in an appropriate manner. When the peeping tom

sexually assaulted a third woman shortly thereafter, UUPS failed to respond for twenty minutes

despite having the ability to respond within 90 seconds, demonstrating its utter disregard for the

seriousness of gender violence.

111. Indeed, on another occasion, a woman reported that her former boyfriend had

been stalking her for months, that he was controlling and abusive, that he hacked her social

media accounts and that he had sabotaged her vehicle causing the wheel to fall off while she was

driving on two separate occasions. Instead of investigating the harasser or taking any action to

prevent further harassment, UUPS told the victim that the harassment would eventually stop

when her harasser got bored and moved on. Despite contacting UUPS several more times over

the next few months to report additional incidents of stalking and sexual harassment, UUPS

refused to investigate and closed the case. Desperate for help, the victim turned to the dean of

students, who eventually helped her obtain a no contact order.

112. On another occasion, a woman reported that she had been raped in her dorm room

by a man that she had just met. UUPS officers were disinterested in her report and did not

believe that she had been raped. They refused to contact the suspect, failed to perform any

investigation aside from interviewing the victim and closed the case a month later after telling

the victim that she should just get over it and move on.

32
 113. In fact, UUPS routinely expressed disbelief in reports of sexual harassment based

solely on the interview with the victim and despite failing to otherwise perform any investigation

to determine whether the reports could be verified. For example, on one occasion, UUPS

responded to a female employee at the University who reported that her boss had raped her on

two occasions. Despite conducting no investigation into the matter, the male police officer

directly told the woman “Well I don’t believe you.” On another occasion, federal investigators

were investigating UUPS for mishandling a rape report. In response, Chief Brophy sent out a

campus-wide email openly questioning whether the woman was telling the truth.

114. Despite its obligation to investigate sexual harassment occurring on campus,

UUPS routinely referred women who reported sexual harassment to SLCPD after falsely

indicating that UUPS had no jurisdiction and could do nothing to help. Indeed, on one occasion,

a female student reported that a male student had threatened to kill her and told her that he was

planning to stab her over fall break. UUPS refused to respond because the threat had been sent

by text message and instructed the student to call SLCPD. SLCPD’s report expressed frustration

with UUPS, described a custom of improperly passing sexual harassment cases to SLCPD and of

failing to take such reports seriously. After SLCPD called and told UUPS officers that they were

obligated to investigate the report, UUPS treated the victim with disdain, failed to properly

respond or investigate her case and closed the case after falsely indicating that the victim did not

want to press charges. The victim was forced to withdraw from her classes out of a concern for

her safety.

115. On another occasion, a female student reported that a suicidal friend had

disappeared. Worried, the student contacted UUPS, but officers merely responded by saying

33
“she’s probably in the stairwell making out with some boy, go back to your dorm.” The officer

dismissed the female student’s concerns and then made her walk back to her dorm room alone at

3:00 a.m. The female student reported the incident to University administration, but the

administration failed to take any action.

116. Observing the custom of deliberate indifference to reports of sexual harassment

and the custom of treatment based on gender stereotypes, including the failure to believe reports

of sexual harassment provided by women or to investigate such reports and take them seriously,

and recognizing that these customs put women at risk, some officers reported their concerns to

UUPS, but their reported concerns were ignored.

117. Additionally, UUPS underreported the number of rapes that occurred on campus

and routinely failed to obtain forensic evidence in connection with rape investigations. Indeed,

despite reporting twelve on-campus rapes to the federal government in 2018, UUPS only

reported four rapes to the Utah Department of Public Safety and only submitted rape kits in three

of those four cases.

118. UUPS was understaffed both generally with respect to the need for more patrol

officers and specifically with respect to officers that were trained to investigate domestic

violence cases, including reports of sexual harassment, stalking and other forms of interpersonal

violence.

119. Moreover, UUPS routinely trained and/or instructed officers to take no action and

to make no record with regard to incoming calls that involved reports of sexual harassment.

When responding in person, officers were trained and/or instructed to take no action and to make

no note of domestic violence cases where a husband or male partner was present and indicated

34
that the situation had been resolved, even if the officers could see the woman cowering behind

the door. Officers were also trained and/or instructed to “adjust” paperwork regarding reports of

sexual harassment to exclude information regarding the severity of the allegations and to

reclassify the reports as “suspicious circumstances” in their police dispatch log entries in order to

make the number of sexual harassment reports seem lower than the actual number. UUPS only

trained and/or instructed the officers to alter paperwork and police dispatch log entries with

respect to reports of sexual harassment.

120. In addition to affirmatively training and/or instructing officers to ignore reports of

sexual harassment and to respond with deliberate indifference, UUPS failed to provide training

necessary to provide an appropriate and timely response to reports of sexual harassment and to

avoid choosing a course of action on the basis of stereotypes. Among other deficits, officers

were not trained: to recognize reports of sexual harassment or the warning signs of sexual

harassment; to assess the risk associated with reports of sexual harassment; to respond to reports

of sexual harassment in a timely and appropriate manner; to know when a response or lack

thereof violated equal protection rights under the Utah Constitution; to understand the rights,

remedies, requirements and obligations under these provisions of the Utah Constitution; or to

understand the consequences associated with violating these provisions of the Utah Constitution.

121. UUPS also negligently failed to provide training necessary to recognize common

gender stereotypes; to set aside personal bias and avoid treatment based on gender stereotypes

while acting under color of state law; to understand that treatment based on gender stereotypes

violates the Utah Constitution; or to understand the risks and consequences associated with

treatment based on gender stereotypes.

35
 122. In fact, recognizing that their training was deficient, UUPS officers specifically

requested training with regard to these issues, but their requests were denied. Moreover, the

Utah Domestic Violence Coalition offered to provide training on issues regarding, among other

things, interpersonal violence and lethality assessments, but UUPS, through Chief Brophy,

refused the offer indicating that such training was not appropriate in a campus setting. When the

Utah Domestic Violence Coalition offered to provide training again after Lauren was murdered,

UUPS, through Chief Brophy, responded with hostility and refused the offer again.

123. Furthermore, UUPS routinely neglected to discipline officers who failed to

respond to reports of sexual harassment in a timely and appropriate manner or who treated

women based on gender stereotypes. When UUPS did discipline officers, it was only after

several similar incidents had occurred and the disciplinary measures imposed were often

insufficient. Indeed, on one occasion, UUPS promoted a male officer to a detective position

within months of a reprimand for neglect of duty on a domestic violence case that was issued

following several other similar incidents.

124. UUPS’s customs and policies were so heavily entrenched in the culture at UUPS

that the customs continued even after Lauren was murdered as a result of the customs and

policies.

125. In fact, approximately four months after Lauren’s murder, Officer Deras

responded to a domestic violence call from a woman who was seeking information about how to

report an assault by her boyfriend. When Officer Deras arrived to speak to the woman, the

suspect was present. Contrary to UUPS policy, Officer Deras let the man stay while he

interviewed the concerned woman, failed to call for backup, did not include the man’s criminal

36
history in his report and did not check to see if the man was on parole even though the man had

attempted to call his parole officer in Deras’ presence. Officer Deras was disciplined for putting

the woman in danger and shortly thereafter resigned from UUPS.

126. Moreover, approximately four months after Lauren’s murder, Detective Dallof

was assigned to investigate a domestic violence case involving a seventeen year-old girl who had

been trying to break up with a University student. The student had trapped the teenage girl in his

dorm room and left her a voicemail in which he screamed and threatened to kill her. Detective

Dallof left work for the weekend without investigating or taking immediate action on the case

and failed to check crucial voicemails. Detective Dallof was fired after being told that “Leaving

without taking immediate action on this matter is a complete dereliction of duty” and that “The

totality of what was known by you as an investigator of this situation should have signaled an

alarm or given you notice that you needed to handle the incident immediately without hesitation

and taken the initiative to find the male student and place him under arrest.”

127. UUPS’s general attitude of disdain for women is reflected not only in its custom

of discriminating against women who report sexual harassment to the police, but is also reflected

in its custom of discriminating against women who work at UUPS. In fact, male officers

sexually harassed female co-workers at UUPS on a regular basis. Accordingly, in addition to

treating women who report sexual harassment based on gender stereotypes and consciously

acquiescing in the sexual harassment they report, UUPS also treats women employees based on

gender stereotypes and sexually harasses them directly.

128. Among other things, male officers talked about the appearance of female co-

workers in a manner that made them feel uncomfortable, amused themselves by telling

37
demeaning and sexist jokes at work, referred to women with derogatory gender based language

and strictly adhered to beliefs that were based on gender stereotypes. For instance, male officers

routinely commented on one female co-worker’s breasts. After she had breast reduction surgery,

they commented “What a waste.” One male Sergeant was known for praising female dispatch

officers for the “decision not to wear a bra today.” Moreover, male officers referred to a group

of female police officers as the “pussy posse” and often asked members of the group whether

they were “on their period.” In fact, on one occasion, a female officer who was interested in

obtaining a promotion sought advice from a supervisor asking him how she could attain her goal.

After scanning her body, the supervisor responded: “Grow your hair out. You’d look nicer that

way.”

129. Among other things, male officers hazed female officers mercilessly and

sabotaged their ability to perform their jobs effectively. For instance, male officers urinated in a

female officer’s locker and in her patrol bag, altered the sights on her rifle, hid the keys to her

patrol car and cut her zip ties so that she could not use them to secure a suspect during an arrest.

130. Among other things, UUPS disciplined female officers more frequently and more

severely than male officers who had engaged in more egregious conduct. For example, women

officers were generally disciplined for being tardy or for other minor violations while male

officers were only disciplined for serious violations and only after several similar incidents had

already occurred. Indeed, while Officer Deras and Detective Dallof were both disciplined for

deliberate indifference to reports of sexual harassment after Lauren was murdered, Officer Deras,

a man, was not fired while Detective Dallof, a woman, was fired.

38
 131. Among other things, male officers often touched female co-workers in a manner

that was inappropriate and unwelcome. Moreover, supervisors routinely asked female co-

workers to sit on their laps. On one occasion, a male security guard stalked a female co-worker

for months, continually asked her to go on dates and eventually pushed her against a wall and

kissed her without her consent. After the assault, the security guard was allowed to resign

without receiving a reprimand in his file.

132. Indeed, despite multiple and repeated internal complaints of sexual harassment

directed toward female employees, including but not limited to those set forth above, UUPS

refused to respond. On some occasions, the harassers were promoted rather than disciplined.

In fact, Chief Brophy himself has twice been disciplined for inappropriately touching a female

co-worker in a sexual manner. On one occasion, Chief Brophy grabbed the back of a secretary’s

bra as she walked past him. On another occasion, Chief Brophy rubbed a female co-worker’s

back without her consent. Accordingly, those who were in charge actively participated in the

sexual harassment of female employees at UUPS. Indeed, Chief Brophy had a reputation for

belittling women, treating them with disrespect, causing some to quit as a result, and has been

disciplined for yelling at a woman on the telephone in an angry and profane manner.

133. Defendants’ acts or omissions were the result of willful and malicious conduct or

conduct that manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, Lauren’s

rights and were a cause of the injuries suffered and damages incurred by the Plaintiffs.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(NEGLIGENCE )

134. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all previous paragraphs above as though

fully set forth below.

39
 135. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care and to respond in a timely and

appropriate manner to reports that Melvin Rowland was sexually harassing Lauren McCluskey.

136. Defendants also had a duty to exercise reasonable care and to provide appropriate

training, supervision, instruction, discipline and control over subordinates.

137. Defendants also had a duty to exercise reasonable care and to promulgate, create,

implement, maintain and enforce appropriate policies regarding responses to reports of sexual

harassment.

138. Defendants breached their duty by failing to exercise reasonable care and were

negligent when, among other things, they failed to:

a. respond in a timely or appropriate manner;

b. enforce University policies and procedures;

c. investigate the allegations against Melvin Rowland;

d. check Melvin Rowland’s parole status;

e. report Melvin Rowland’s activity to Adult Probation and Parole;

f. ban Melvin Rowland from campus;

g. detain and/or arrest Melvin Rowland for suspected criminal activity;

h. arrange, facilitate or provide immediate and adequate notice of the rights

of victims and of the remedies and services available to victims of stalking and/or

domestic violence, including but not limited to information sufficient to obtain an order

of protection or a stalking injunction from the courts;

i. pass information up the chain of command;

40
 j. contact and coordinate with other University departments, organizations or

teams, including but not limited to the CARE team and the Behavior Intervention Team

(“BIT”);

k. provide referrals to victim advocacy and/or counseling services;

l. provide housing adjustments;

m. provide academic adjustments;

n. impose no-contact directives;

o. provide security escorts;

p. provide other safety and protective measures;

q. provide educational training;

r. review or revise University policies, procedures or practices;

s. consider broader remedial action;

t. provide appropriate training, supervision, instruction, discipline and

control over subordinates; and/or

u. create, implement and enforce appropriate policies regarding responses to

reports of sexual harassment.

139. Despite having the ability and authority to take action to end the sexual

harassment, Defendants failed to take any reasonable action to end the sexual harassment,

thereby exposing Lauren to further sexual harassment and leaving her to be kidnapped and

murdered on the University’s campus.

41
 140. Defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of Lauren McCluskey’s injuries

and damages, which include but are not limited to further incidents of sexual harassment,

culminating in a brutal attack that resulted in Lauren’s murder.

141. Lauren McCluskey otherwise suffered additional harm and incurred damages as a

result of Defendants’ negligence.

142. Defendants’ conduct was the result of willful and malicious or intentionally

fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and

a disregard of the rights of Lauren McCluskey.

143. Defendants are independently liable for action that they took or failed to take in

light of the knowledge that was imputed to them through their employees, staff and/or agents.

144. Plaintiffs have a good faith argument that any case law purporting to foreclose

their negligence claim was incorrectly decided where such negligence caused Lauren’s death.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(EQUAL PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES UNDER THE UTAH CONSTITUTION)

145. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all previous paragraphs above as though fully set

forth below.

146. The provisions of the Utah Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory.

147. Gender equality is a fundamental right under the Utah Constitution that is essential to the

security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.

148. Discrimination on the basis of sex inherently interferes with the ability of male and

female citizens to enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges.

149. The Utah Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

150. Defendants violated the Utah Constitution when they discriminated against Lauren on the

basis of her sex.

42
 151. Defendants discriminated against Lauren McCluskey on the basis of her sex by treating

dismissively her complaints about sexual harassment—a criminal activity that disproportionately affects

women.

152. Defendants discriminated against Lauren McCluskey on the basis of her sex when they

failed to respond to reports of sexual harassment in a timely and appropriate manner, thereby subjecting

Lauren to further sexual harassment.

153. Defendants discriminated against Lauren McCluskey on the basis of her sex when they

responded or failed to respond or otherwise treated Lauren based on gender stereotypes.

154. Defendants caused Lauren McCluskey’s death when they discriminated against her on

the basis of her sex, thereby permanently depriving her of the ability to enjoy any right or privilege

equally with males.

155. Defendants otherwise caused Plaintiffs’ harm and related damages when they violated the

Utah Constitution by discriminating against Lauren on the basis of her sex.

156. Defendants otherwise interfered with Lauren McCluskey’s ability to enjoy

equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges when they discriminated against her

on the basis of her sex, including but not limited to:

a. the civil right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex;

b. the civil right to be free from sexual harassment;

c. the civil right to be free from treatment based on gender stereotypes;

d. the civil right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

e. the civil right to bodily integrity;

f. the civil right to privacy;

43
 g. the civil right to be free from conduct that involves “violence or physical

harm;”

h. the civil rights protected under the United States Constitution and under

federal law;

i. the privilege or right to receive a timely and appropriate response to

reports of sexual harassment;

j. the privilege of police protection or other police services;

k. the privilege of receiving protection and/or services otherwise offered to

students at the University of Utah and/or to residents of the Shoreline Dormitory;

l. the privilege of receiving the benefit of the University’s purported policies

or procedures relating to sexual harassment; and

m. the privilege of obtaining an education at a public university;

157. Defendants violated the Utah Constitution when they otherwise interfered with

Lauren McCluskey’s ability to enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and

privileges.

158. Defendants caused Lauren McCluskey’s death when they otherwise interfered

with Lauren McCluskey’s ability to enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and

privileges, thereby permanently depriving her of the ability to enjoy any right or privilege

equally with males.

159. Defendants otherwise caused Plaintiffs harm and related damages when they

violated the Utah Constitution by interfering with Lauren McCluskey’s ability to enjoy equally

all civil, political and religious rights and privileges.

44
 160. Defendants’ conduct was the result of willful and malicious or intentionally

fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and

a disregard of the rights of Lauren McCluskey.

161. Defendants are independently liable for action that they took or failed to take in

light of the knowledge that was imputed to them through their employees, staff and/or agents.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(EQUAL PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES UNDER THE UTAH STATE CONSTITUTION)
(FAILURE TO TRAIN, SUPERVISE, CONTROL, INSTRUCT, OR DISCIPLINE)

162. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all previous paragraphs above as though

fully set forth below.

163. At all times relevant hereto, the University, Chief Brophy, and John/Jane Doe

were engaged in policy making to supervise and control all policies, practices, rules, guidelines,

customs and regulations regarding interactions with students.

164. At all times relevant hereto, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe had

duties to train, supervise, control, instruct and discipline subordinates with regard to, among

other things, issues regarding gender based discrimination, treatment based on gender

stereotypes and responses to reports of sexual harassment, including but not limited to reports of

stalking, abuse, intimidation, domestic violence, dating violence, interpersonal violence, sexual

misconduct and sexual assault.

165. More specifically, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe had a duty to

provide training that was necessary to ensure that subordinates would: recognize reports of

sexual harassment and the common warning signs associated with sexual harassment; assess the

degree of risk associated with such reports; respond to reports of sexual harassment in a timely

45
and appropriate manner; know when a response or the lack thereof amounted to negligence under

the common law or violated the Utah Constitution; understand the rights, remedies, requirements

and obligations under these provisions of law; and understand the risks and consequences

associated with violating these provisions of law.

166. Likewise, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe had a duty to provide

training that was necessary to ensure that subordinates would: recognize common gender

stereotypes; learn to set aside personal bias; understand that treatment based on gender

stereotypes violates the constitution; and understand the risks and consequences associated with

treatment based on gender stereotypes.

167. Moreover, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe also had a duty to

supervise, control and instruct subordinates to ensure that they were not deliberately indifference

to reports of sexual harassment, that they were not treating women based on gender stereotypes,

that they were not discriminating on the basis of sex and that they were otherwise conducting

themselves in accordance with their training and with University policies and procedures.

168. Finally, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe had a duty to provide

timely and appropriate discipline when subordinates acted with deliberate indifference to reports

of sexual harassment, when they treated women based on gender stereotypes, when they

discriminated on the basis of sex and when they otherwise failed to conduct themselves in

accordance with their training and/or when they violated University policies and procedures.

169. The University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe subjected Lauren McCluskey to

sexual harassment, subjected her to treatment based on gender stereotypes, discriminated against

her on the basis of her sex and otherwise interfered with Lauren’s ability to enjoy equally all

46
civil, political and religious rights and privileges when they failed to train, supervise, control,

instruct, or discipline subordinates despite knowing that subordinates had an unconstitutional

custom or policy of subjecting women to sexual harassment, treating women based on gender

stereotypes and/or discriminating against women on the basis of sex.

170. In fact, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe actively trained

subordinates to respond to reports of sexual harassment with deliberate indifference and to treat

women based on gender stereotypes.

171. Subordinates treated Lauren McCluskey in accordance with the unconstitutional

policy or custom of subjecting women to sexual harassment, treating women based on gender

stereotypes and/or discriminating against women on the basis of sex.

172. Likewise, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe subjected Lauren

McCluskey to sexual harassment, subjected her to treatment based on gender stereotypes,

discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and otherwise interfered with Lauren’s ability to

enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges when they failed to train,

supervise, control, instruct, or discipline subordinates despite the fact that they should have

known that the failure to train, supervise, instruct, or control subordinates was likely to result in

discrimination on the basis of sex.

173. Among other things, numerous authorities, including the U.S. Supreme Court and

U.S. Department of Education, made clear and gave notice to the University, Chief Brophy and

John/Jane Doe that subordinates will confront sexual harassment and abuse directed toward

students with regularity, given the high predictability, recurrence and prevalence of sexual

harassment, assault and abuse on university campuses and on the University’s campus. Thus, it

47
was foreseen and inevitable that subordinates would encounter recurrent situations involving

sexual harassment that implicated students’ constitutional rights, and it did, in fact, encounter

those recurring situations.

174. The failure to train, supervise, control, instruct, or discipline subordinates caused

subordinates to violate Lauren McCluskey’s constitutional rights, resulting in harm and related

damages, including but not limited to Lauren’s death.

175. The University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe’s failure to train, supervise,

control, instruct, or discipline subordinates effectively deprived Lauren of her constitutional

rights and was deliberate, reckless and in callous indifference to such rights.

176. To the extent that subordinates obtained knowledge in the course and scope of

their employment, such knowledge is imputed to the University, Chief Brophy and to John/Jane

Doe.

177. The University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe are independently liable for

action that they took or failed to take in light of the knowledge that was imputed to them through

their subordinates.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(EQUAL PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES UNDER THE UTAH STATE CONSTITUTION)
(UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR CUSTOM)
(POLICY OR CUSTOM LIKELY TO RESULT IN CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS)
(FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE POLICY)

178. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all previous paragraphs above as though
fully set forth below.

Unconstitutional Policy or Custom

179. The University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe discriminated against Lauren

McCluskey on the basis of her sex, and otherwise interfered with Lauren’s ability to enjoy

48
equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges when they promulgated, created,

implemented, maintained, enforced or were otherwise responsible for unconstitutional policies or

customs involving discrimination on the basis of sex that required or encouraged subordinates to,

among other things, respond to reports of sexual harassment with deliberate indifference, subject

women to further sexual harassment and/or to treat women based on gender stereotypes.

180. Subordinates treated Lauren McCluskey in accordance with these unconstitutional

policies or customs, resulting in harm and related damages, including but not limited to Lauren’s

death.

Other Policies or Customs Likely to Cause Constitutional Violations

181. Moreover, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe discriminated against

Lauren McCluskey on the basis of her sex and otherwise interfered with Lauren’s ability to enjoy

equally all civil, political, and religious rights and privileges when they promulgated, created,

implemented, maintained, enforced, or were otherwise responsible for other policies or customs

that were likely to result in deliberate indifference to sexual harassment, treatment based on

gender stereotypes and/or discrimination on the basis of sex.

182. Indeed, among other things, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe

promulgated, created, implemented, maintained, and/or were responsible for policies or customs

that required or encouraged subordinates to, among other things: ignore reports of sexual

harassment; ignore assignments to investigate reports of sexual harassment; respond to reports of

sexual harassment in an untimely manner; investigate reports of sexual harassment in an

untimely manner; investigate victims, but not their harassers; ignore information that could be

obtained by checking a harasser’s parole status; intimidate victims of sexual harassment; treat

49
victims of sexual harassment with hostility and disdain; minimize reports of sexual harassment;

respond to sexual harassment in a flippant manner; express disinterest in the harassment; blame

victims for the harassment; accuse victims of lying about the harassment; otherwise discourage

women from reporting harassment or from taking action against their harassers; refuse requests

to obtain or preserve forensic evidence; divert victims of sexual harassment to SLCPD; and

ignore laws that require law enforcement to provide victims of sexual harassment with

information about their rights and the resources available to them.

183. The University and Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe also had a policy or custom

of: ignoring serious concerns reported by subordinates; denying requests for training from

subordinates who felt unequipped to perform their duties; rejecting offers to provide training that

subordinates requested and needed; failing to provide enough qualified staff to adequately

respond to reports of sexual harassment; manipulating and altering police records in sexual

harassment cases; personally participating in the sexual harassment of employees; consciously

acquiescing in sexual harassment directed toward employees; and otherwise discriminating

against employees and others on the basis of their sex.

184. The policies or customs that the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe

promulgated, created, implemented, maintained, enforced and were responsible for caused

subordinates to violate Lauren McCluskey’s constitutional rights, resulting in harm and related

damages, including but not limited to Lauren’s death.

185. Indeed, among other things, the policies or customs caused subordinates to ignore

third party reports of sexual harassment; ignore the duty to investigate third party reports of

sexual harassment; ignore employee concerns regarding students; otherwise respond to third

50
party reports of sexual harassment in an untimely manner; otherwise discourage women from

reporting harassment or from taking action against their harassers; call law enforcement only as a

last resort; ignore guest policy violations; threaten punishment against victims of sexual

harassment; reject requests for reasonable accommodations; reject requests to enforce no-contact

orders; and ignore laws that required subordinates to provide information to victims of sexual

harassment.

Failure to Promulgate, Create, Implement, Maintain or Enforce Policies

186. The University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe discriminated against Lauren

McCluskey on the basis of her sex and otherwise interfered with Lauren’s ability to enjoy

equally all civil, political, and religious rights and privileges when they failed to promulgate,

create, implement, maintain, or enforce policies despite knowing that subordinates had an

unconstitutional custom of deliberate indifference to sexual harassment, treatment based on

gender stereotypes and/or discrimination on the basis of sex.

187. Furthermore, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe discriminated

against Lauren McCluskey on the basis of her sex and otherwise interfered with Lauren’s ability

to enjoy equally all civil, political, and religious rights and privileges when they failed to

promulgate, create, implement, maintain, or enforce policies despite the fact that they should

have known that subordinates had other customs that were likely to result in deliberate

indifference to sexual harassment, treatment based on gender stereotypes and/or discrimination

on the basis of sex.

188. Finally, the University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe discriminated against

Lauren McCluskey on the basis of her sex and otherwise interfered with Lauren’s ability to enjoy

51
equally all civil, political, and religious rights and privileges when they failed to promulgate,

create, implement, maintain, or enforce policies despite the fact that they knew or should have

known that the failure to do so was likely to result in deliberate indifference to sexual

harassment, treatment based on gender stereotypes and/or discrimination on the basis of sex by

subordinates.

189. The failure to promulgate, create, implement, maintain, or enforce policies caused

subordinates to violate Lauren McCluskey’s constitutional rights, resulting in harm and related

damages, including but not limited to Lauren’s death.

190. The University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe’s conduct was the result of

willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifested a knowing

and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of the rights of Lauren McCluskey.

191. To the extent that subordinates obtained knowledge in the course and scope of

their employment, such knowledge is imputed to the University, Chief Brophy and to John/Jane

Doe.

192. The University, Chief Brophy and John/Jane Doe are independently liable for

action that they took or failed to take in light of the knowledge that was imputed to them through

their subordinates.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(SURVIVAL)

193. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the previous allegations of this

complaint.

52
 194. Pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-3-107, Lauren McCluskey’s claims did not abate upon her

death and Plaintiffs have a cause of action against Defendants for special and general damages associated

with such claims.

195. Plaintiffs have a good faith argument that any case law purporting to foreclose such a

claim was incorrectly decided.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(WRONGFUL DEATH)

196. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the previous allegations of this

complaint.

197. Pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-3-106, Lauren’s McCluskey’s heirs have a cause of

action against Defendants for wrongful death associated with Lauren’s underlying claims for

negligence and deprivation of her equal protection of rights and privileges under the Utah

Constitution and they are entitled to general and special damages for, among other things, costs

associated with Lauren’s death, the value of services Lauren would have provided, loss of

Lauren’s society, comfort, association, love, counsel, care, consortium and protection, loss of the

reasonable expectation to associate with Lauren for the rest of her natural life, and for any and all

other damages as may be just under the circumstances of the case.

198. Plaintiffs have a good faith argument that any case law purporting to foreclose

such a claim was incorrectly decided.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(VICARIOUS LIABILITY)

199. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the previous allegations of this

complaint.

53
 200. Defendants’ employees, agents and/or staff were at all times pertinent to the

claims and matters addressed herein acting within the course and scope of their respective

employment and/or agency.

201. Knowledge obtained within the course and scope of the employment or agency is

imputed to Defendants.

202. Defendants are vicariously liable for the harm caused by their respective

employees, agents, and/or staff.

203. Defendants ratified the conduct of their respective employees, agents, and/or staff.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:

1. For their First Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek judgment on Lauren McCluskey’s

behalf against Defendants for $56,000,000, an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional

amount and sufficient to qualify for Tier 3, as defined by Rule 26(c)(3) of the Utah Rules of

Civil Procedure for, among other things, loss of access to educational opportunities and benefits,

tuition and related expenses, dormitory housing and related expenses, personal injuries, pain and

suffering, loss of chance, mental anguish, medical expenses, impaired earning capacity, lost

wages, and other special and general damages; for punitive damages; for permission to amend

this Complaint and to add parties and causes of action at a later date consistent with evidence

adduced through discovery; for prejudgment interest, for post judgment interest, for the costs of

this suit, including attorney’s fees and for such further relief as the Court deems proper.

2. For their Second Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek judgment on Lauren

McCluskey’s behalf against Defendants for $56,000,000, an amount in excess of the minimum

54
jurisdictional amount and sufficient to qualify for Tier 3, as defined by Rule 26(c)(3) of the Utah

Rules of Civil Procedure for, among other things, loss of access to educational opportunities and

benefits, tuition and related expenses, dormitory housing and related expenses, personal injuries,

pain and suffering, loss of chance, mental anguish, medical expenses, impaired earning capacity,

lost wages, and other special and general damages; for punitive damages; for permission to

amend this Complaint and to add parties and causes of action at a later date consistent with

evidence adduced through discovery; for prejudgment interest, for post judgment interest, for the

costs of this suit, including attorney’s fees and for such further relief as the Court deems proper.

3. For their Third Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek judgment on Lauren McCluskey’s

behalf against the University, against Chief Dale Brophy and against John/Jane Doe for

$56,000,000 an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount and sufficient to qualify

for Tier 3, as defined by Rule 26(c)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for, among other

things, loss of access to educational opportunities and benefits, tuition and related expenses,

dormitory housing and related expenses, personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of chance,

mental anguish, medical expenses, impaired earning capacity, lost wages, and other special and

general damages; for punitive damages; for permission to amend this Complaint and to add

parties and causes of action at a later date consistent with evidence adduced through discovery;

for prejudgment interest, for post judgment interest, for the costs of this suit, including attorney’s

fees and for such further relief as the Court deems proper.

4. For their Fourth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek judgment on Lauren

McCluskey’s behalf against the University, against Chief Dale Brophy and against John/Jane

Doe for $56,000,000, an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount and sufficient

55
to qualify for Tier 3, as defined by Rule 26(c)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for, among

other things, loss of access to educational opportunities and benefits, tuition and related

expenses, dormitory housing and related expenses, personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of

chance, mental anguish, medical expenses, impaired earning capacity, lost wages, and other

special and general damages; for punitive damages; for permission to amend this Complaint and

to add parties and causes of action at a later date consistent with evidence adduced through

discovery; for prejudgment interest, for post judgment interest, for the costs of this suit,

including attorney’s fees and for such further relief as the Court deems proper.

5. For their Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek judgment on Lauren McCluskey’s

behalf against Defendants for $56,000,000, an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional

amount and sufficient to qualify for Tier 3, as defined by Rule 26(c)(3) of the Utah Rules of

Civil Procedure for, among other things, loss of access to educational opportunities and benefits,

tuition and related expenses, dormitory housing and related expenses, personal injuries, pain and

suffering, loss of chance, mental anguish, medical expenses, impaired earning capacity, lost

wages, and other special and general damages; for punitive damages; for permission to amend

this Complaint and to add parties and causes of action at a later date consistent with evidence

adduced through discovery; for prejudgment interest, for post judgment interest, for the costs of

this suit, including attorney’s fees and for such further relief as the Court deems proper.

6. For their Sixth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek judgment on Jill McCluskey and

Matthew McCluskey’s behalf against Defendants for $56,000,000, an amount in excess of the

minimum jurisdictional amount and sufficient to qualify for Tier 3, as defined by Rule 26(c)(3)

of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for, among other things, cost associated with Lauren’s

56
death, funeral expenses, pain and suffering, loss of chance, mental anguish, the value of services

Lauren would have provided, loss of society, comfort, association, love, counsel, care,

consortium and protection, loss of the reasonable expectation of Mr. and Mrs. McCluskey to

associate with Lauren, and other special and general damages; for punitive damages; for

permission to amend this Complaint and to add parties and causes of action at a later date

consistent with evidence adduced through discovery; for prejudgment interest, for post judgment

interest, for the costs of this suit, including attorney’s fees and for such further relief as the Court

deems proper.

7. For their Seventh Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek judgment Defendants for

$56,000,000, an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount and sufficient to qualify

for Tier 3, as defined by Rule 26(c)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for, among other

things, all of the relief requested in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prayer for Relief.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs have tendered the

statutory jury fee and demand a trial by jury for all of the issues that can be tried by a jury.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2020.

PARKER & MCCONKIE

/s/ James W. McConkie

James W. McConkie
Bradley H. Parker
W. Alexander Evans

ZIMMERMAN BOOHER
Christine M. Durham
J. Frederic Voros, Jr.
Dick J. Baldwin

57
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs’ Address:
Jill and Matthew McCluskey
c/o James W. McConkie
PARKER & McCONKIE
5664 South Green Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84123

58