Title IX / College Discipline Practice - Warshaw Burstein LLP | <em >Doe v. Princeton</em >, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4449 (D.N.J. 2019)
This links to the home page
  • Doe v. Princeton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4449 (D.N.J. 2019)
    In November 2018, Doe was advised that Princeton University commenced a Title IX investigation regarding Jane Roe’s allegations of sexual misconduct in the Spring of 2017.  As part of the investigation, Doe was scheduled to be interviewed on November 26, 2018. Doe requested that the interview be postponed until January 28, 2019, the closing day for the notice-and-comment period for the proposed regulations by the Department of Education (“DOE”). Princeton agreed to two postponements of the interview, first to December 3, 2018 and then to December 10, 2018. Princeton did not agree to postpone the investigation until the implementation of the proposed regulation, nor did they agree to apply substantive portions of the proposed regulations to the Title IX investigation.

    The Court denied Plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction stating that “an injunction may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or future invasion of rights.” Plaintiff had not suffered any harm, nor could he prove an invasion of rights based on the proposed regulations. Plaintiff’s due process claim failed because a private university is not directly governed by the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff’s due process claim also relied on the proposed regulations, which are not yet in effect. Plaintiff failed to establish that Princeton’s policies violated current DOE regulations or precedent.

    Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims were sustained. Whether Plaintiff’s extension request demonstrated “good cause” pursuant to Princeton’s policies presents an issue of fact more appropriate for summary judgment.
    CATEGORY: Civil Litigation