PIEDMONT— A federal appeals court has reinstated a former Piedmont High School football player’s Title IX lawsuit, ruling that allegations involving a football hazing practice known as “keying” could constitute sexual harassment under federal law rather than ordinary locker-room behavior.

In a published opinion issued June 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of claims brought by a former Piedmont football player identified in court records as C.W. The appeals court sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for further proceedings.

The ruling allows C.W. to continue pursuing a Title IX claim against the Piedmont City School District and an Equal Protection claim against former Piedmont High School football coach and athletic director Steve Smith.

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools and educational programs receiving federal funding. In addition to addressing issues related to athletics, the law also requires schools to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination.

According to the appellate court’s opinion, the lawsuit centers on events that allegedly occurred during C.W.’s freshman year in the football program in 2022.

Court records describe “keying” as a long-standing practice within the football program in which older players allegedly targeted younger teammates. The opinion states that the practice involved forcing a vehicle key into a player’s anus and twisting it.

The court noted that three students were charged with assault in 2020 following an alleged keying incident involving another player. That incident also resulted in a separate civil lawsuit against the school district and Smith.

According to the complaint, C.W. alleged that he experienced repeated harassment from teammates and was threatened with the keying ritual. The complaint further alleges that the harassment continued afterward and that C.W. eventually transferred to another school.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s earlier conclusion that the allegations were more consistent with anti-freshman bullying than sex-based discrimination.

Instead, the appellate court found that the complaint plausibly alleged C.W. was targeted because he did not conform to masculine stereotypes and that the alleged conduct was sexual in nature.

The court also rejected arguments that the conduct amounted to typical football “horseplay,” finding that the allegations, if proven, could support a claim of sexual harassment under Title IX.

In the opinion, Chief Judge William Pryor wrote that the allegations described what could be viewed as “a campaign of emasculatory harassment culminating in an attempted sexual assault.” He further stated that a fact finder could conclude the conduct went beyond simple teasing or roughhousing and instead constituted sexual harassment.

The court additionally held that an attempted sexual assault is inherently sexual in nature and that the allegations, if proven, could satisfy Title IX’s standards for severe and pervasive harassment.

The Eleventh Circuit also reinstated C.W.’s Equal Protection claim against Smith, finding that the complaint plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment.

The appeals court’s decision does not determine whether the allegations are true, nor does it establish liability on the part of the school district, Smith, or any other party. Rather, the ruling allows the lawsuit to proceed and returns the matter to federal district court for further litigation.

The full opinion of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is publicly available through the court’s records and can be seen here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202412547.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com