Penn State must face retaliation suit over fencing coach’s purported sexual assault

PHILADELPHIA (CN) — A North Carolina woman's Title IX claims against Penn State concerning a purported sexual assault and retaliatory campaign involving university fencing coaches can proceed, a Third Circuit panel ruled on Thursday.

According to North Carolina private fencing coach Jennifer Oldham, Penn State assistant fencing coach George Abashidze sexually harassed and assaulted her during a 2017 flight, repeatedly asking her for sex before grabbing her genitals.

When Oldham informed then-Penn State head coach Wes Glon of the incident, she said Glon declined to report it to Penn State and pressured Oldham to keep quiet as well.

Furthermore, Oldham said Glon and Abashidze embarked on a retaliation campaign against her, excluding her from fencing events, interfering with her applications for coaching positions at other NCAA Division I colleges and blacklisting students of her fencing school both at Penn State and other NCAA fencing programs.

And when Penn State finally did investigate Oldham’s claims, she added, the university’s Title IX coordinator admitted her accusations were substantiated but asserted that neither Abashidze nor Glon had violated Penn State policy.

Dissatisfied with the results of Penn State’s investigation, Oldham filed suit in 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, accusing the university of Title IX violations for sexual harassment and retaliation. The case was eventually transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, partially for improper venue and partially for convenience of the parties.

In 2022, the Pennsylvania district court dismissed all of Oldham’s claims. Because Oldham was neither a student nor an employee of Penn State, the district court ruled, she could not fall within the zone of interests protected by Title IX.

Oldham appealed to the Third Circuit, where a three-judge panel on Thursday ultimately refuted the lower court’s limited description of Title IX protections.

In the appeals court’s opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Peter Phipps denied the validity of the “student-or-employee” test applied by the lower court.

Instead, Phipps — a first-term Donald Trump appointee — presented a two-prong test to establish a Title IX zone of interest: A plaintiff must show that the publicly-funded institution exercises “substantial control” over both the alleged offender and the context in which the mistreatment occurred or manifested.

Because Abashidze represented Penn State on work travel during the purported flight incident, Oldham’s sexual harassment claim passed the first prong, the appeals court ruled.

However, the court added, Oldham failed to assert that Penn State had substantial control over the flight itself, rendering her Title IX sexual harassment complaint incomplete.

“Without allegations connecting the flight itself to the operation of a program or activity of the university, Oldham has not provided a basis for inferring that Penn State had substantial control over that setting,” Phipps wrote in the court opinion.

Oldham did not make the same mistake in her Title IX retaliation claim, the appeals court ruled.

Because one can reasonably infer that Penn State had substantial control over both Abashidze and Glon’s ability to retaliate and Harris’ handling of sexual misconduct reports, the appeals court ruled, Oldham’s retaliation claim passed the first prong.

And because Penn State has substantial control over on-campus conduct, any Penn State-hosted events involved in the purported retaliation campaign against Oldham fall within Title IX’s zone of interests, the appeals court ruled — meaning Oldham’s retaliation claim can proceed.

Additionally, the court noted, if any off-campus instances of retaliation — including interference in Oldham’s job search, blacklisting of Oldham’s students and exclusion from off-campus events — could be tied back to conversations occurring under Penn State’s substantial control, those instances would also fall within Title IX’s zone of interests.

“Given the allegations in the amended complaint as to the campaign’s breadth and duration, it is reasonable to infer at this stage of the proceedings that those components of Oldham’s claim are within the zone of interests protected by Title IX,” Phipps wrote in the opinion.

This is not the first time Penn State has faced legal challenges over its fencing department. In a separate 2022 lawsuit, former Penn State All-American fencer Zara Moss sued Glon and the university, accusing Glon of sexual, physical and verbal abuse. The parties settled behind closed doors in October 2024.

Representatives for Oldham and Penn State could not be reached for comment.

Follow @JacksonHeals