Title IX / College Discipline Practice - Warshaw Burstein LLP | Title IX Blog
This links to the home page
Title IX Blog
  • Doe v. McDaniel Coll., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2076, Civ. No. SAG-20-1890 (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2020)

    Maryland District Court follows the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in foregoing doctrinal tests for Title IX.  Plaintiff’s selective enforcement claim is dismissed because there was no basis for Plaintiff to maintain two separate Title IX claims.  In the alternative, Plaintiff’s selective enforcement claim was dismissed for failure to identify a female comparator.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Doe v. Am. Univ., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171086
    John Doe’s lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was successful in overcoming the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Doe filed a lawsuit against American University alleging that the school mishandled a sexual assault allegation into Doe, which resulted in a year-and-a-half suspension. Plaintiff brought five causes of action, each under Title IX and the D.C. Human Rights Act, two breach of contract claims, and one negligence claim. The District Court granted the University’s motion to dismiss in part, denying the motion on Doe’s Title IX claim, D.C. Human Rights Act claim, as well as several breach of contract claims.
  • Orr v. S.D. Bd. of Regents, No. 1:19-CV-01023, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184210 (D.S.D. Oct. 5, 2020)
    Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted was denied, as the court found Title IX provides a private right of action for employees of covered institutions alleging intentional sex-based discrimination.  
  • U.S. Department of Education Launches New Title IX Resources for Students and Institutions as Historic New Rule Takes Effect
    On August 14, 2020, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos launched new resources to help students and schools understand the protections provided by the Department of Education’s (DOE) historic regulation on Title IX.
    The rule extends many new protections against sexual harassment, and strongly safeguards the rights of all students, including the right to due process. The DOE also launched a new web site that provides a one-stop resource for this key information, including how to file a complaint, an overview of the rule’s protections for survivors, and a detailed webinar on how schools can fully implement and uphold the new provisions in the law.

    This blog post provides details on the new regulations. 
  • Doe v. Univ. of the Scis., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158684 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 1, 2020)
    Plaintiff’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking reinstatement as a student and to enjoin the University of the Sciences from imposing any disciplinary sanctions against him was denied because Plaintiff failed to establish immediate, irreparable harm if an injunction was not granted.
    CATEGORY: Civil Litigation
  • Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, Docket No. 19-1952, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 27234 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 2020)
    The Fourth Circuit held that Defendant school board’s bathroom policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it treated Plaintiff worse than his cisgender peers. Likewise, Defendant violated Title IX because the school board was necessarily referring to Plaintiff’s sex to determine incongruence between sex and gender. Therefore, sex was a but-for cause for the Defendant’s actions.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Doe v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 19-50737, 2020 WL 3634519 (5th Cir. July 6, 2020)
    Jane Doe was subjected to years of ongoing employee-on-student sexual misconduct. However, the misconduct never came to the attention of a staff member with the ability to institute corrective action. Without actual knowledge of the misconduct, Defendant school district could not be liable under Title IX. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s §1983 claims failed because Jane was unable to prove the requisite causal link between Defendant’s actions and the injury Jane suffered.
  • Doe v. Harvard University, No. 1:18-CV-12150-IT, 2020 WL 2769945 (D. Mass. May 28, 2020)
    Student’s breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims survived Harvard’s motion to dismiss. Harvard’s policies guaranteed John a follow-up interview between his first interview and the conclusion of the investigation, which Harvard did not grant him. John’s Title IX claims failed because the allegations did not show that gender bias caused the findings against John.
    CATEGORY: Sexual Misconduct
  • John Doe v. University of the Sciences, No. 19-2966 (3d Cir. 2020
    Third Circuit declines to follow the Second Circuit’s holding in Yusuf v. Vassar College and, instead, chooses not to impose doctrinal tests when pleading gender bias to support a Title IX cause of action. The Court also held that promises of fair and equitable treatment under the University of the Sciences policy were enforceable. The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and held that John Doe stated a claim for both Title IX and breach of contract.
  • Doe v. Syracuse University, No. 5:17-cv-00787-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020)
    John Doe’s selective enforcement claim will proceed to trial after the Court denies both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the issue. It will be up to the jury to decide whether John was incapacitated and if Syracuse’s decision not to open an investigation into Jane’s potential misconduct was motivated by gender bias. John’s erroneous outcome claim was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence to show gender bias motivated Syracuse’s findings against John.
  • John Doe v. Princeton Univ., No. 3:20-CV-4352-BRM-TJB, 2020 WL 1921956 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2020).
    Plaintiff student’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order was denied. Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the Court did not grant injunctive relief.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Lipian v. Univ. of Mich., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62423 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2020)
    Student’s Title IX sexual harassment claim survives the University of Michigan’s summary judgment motion. The student alleged he was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment, and that he was sexually assaulted by now-disgraced former opera star David Daniels. The evidence supports a finding that the University of Michigan had actual notice of the danger Daniels posed to students, and that its response to warning signs was deliberately indifferent.
    CATEGORY: Sexual Misconduct
  • Doe v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala., No. 5:14-cv-2029-MHH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43864 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 13, 2020)
    Student Jane Doe’s Title IX claim survived summary judgment because there was sufficient evidence the University of Alabama’s response to Jane being sexually assaulted was deliberately indifferent
    CATEGORY: Sexual Assault
  • Foster v. Bd. of Regents, No. 19-1314, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7589 (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2020)
    Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a female student’s deliberate indifference claim is sufficient to survive summary judgment. While the University of Michigan took steps to stop the harassment, it was clear that the respondent continued to engage in harassing behavior and that further measures may have been necessary to put a stop to the harassment.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Feibleman v. Trs. of Columbia Univ., No. 19-CV-4327 (VEC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31499 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020)
    Plaintiff’s Title IX erroneous outcome claim was allowed to proceed because there was enough evidence that Columbia gave preferential treatment to the female complainant, Columbia was facing pressure over its mishandling of Title IX complaints, and Columbia erroneously found Plaintiff to be responsible for sexual misconduct despite hundreds of photographs in evidence and an audio recording in support of Plaintiff. Columbia’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s contract-based claims was granted in part and denied in part.
  • John Doe v. Washington & Lee University, 2020 WL 618836 (W.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2020)
    John Doe’s breach of contract claim was dismissed because Virginia law did not support finding an implied-in-law contract. Doe’s negligence claims were dismissed because no legal duty existed between student and university under Virginia law.
    CATEGORY: Civil Litigation
  • Doe v. University of Connecticut, No. 3:20CV92 (MPS) (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2020).
    Court granted TRO allowing John Doe to return to class pending litigation of his motion for a preliminary injunction. John Doe was able to show under the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction that he was entitled to a TRO.
  • Mucaj v. University of Connecticut, No. 3:20cv66 (MPS) (D. Conn. Jan 16, 2020)
    TRO granted, preventing UCONN from proceeding with a disciplinary hearing against two students. Students were able to show proceeding with the disciplinary hearing would result in irreparable harm, the existence of sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in their favor.
    CATEGORY: Civil Litigation
  • Gagliardi v. Sacred Heart Univ., No. 3:17-cv-857 (VAB), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8337 (D. Conn. Jan. 17, 2020).
    Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration where it merely reiterated the same arguments the Court had already considered when initially deciding Defendant’s summary judgment motion.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Doe v. Arizona Board of Regents, NO.1 CA-CV 18-0784 (Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2019)
    Unknown Party v. Arizona Board of Regents, No. CV-18-01623-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz. Dec. 27, 2019)
    John Doe’s administrative appeal was remanded to the Superior Court following the Arizona Court of Appeals’ finding that Arizona State University’s decision to expel John Doe was not supported by substantial evidence. In a simultaneous suit brought in the District of Arizona, Doe’s Title IX claim was allowed to proceed, while his due process and state law claims were dismissed.
  • Doe v. Haas, No. 19-CV-0014 (DRH)(AKT), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211575 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019)
    John Doe was permitted to proceed with his Title IX erroneous outcome claim where the allegations in the complaint showed he was treated differently than his accuser during the adjudicative process. However, Doe’s due process and selective enforcement claims were dismissed.
    CATEGORIES: Due ProcessDiscrimination
  • Doe v. Johnson & Wales University, C.A. NO. 18-CV-00106-MSM-LDA (D.R.I. Nov. 26, 2019)
    John Doe survived a motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. Doe’s Title IX erroneous outcome claim was unsuccessful because he failed to show gender was a motivating factor in Johnson & Wales University’s decision.
    CATEGORY: Sexual Misconduct
  • Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, No. 19-1871 (1st Cir. Nov. 20, 2019)
    The First Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction because Massachusetts’ breach of contract law does not require a private university to provide respondents an opportunity to cross-examine their accusers in order to comport with “basic fairness.”
    CATEGORY: Due Process
  • Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, No. 19-10705-RGS (D.Mass. Oct. 28, 2019)
    Former graduate student brought suit against UMass Dartmouth for Title IX and due process violations stemming from a Title IX investigation that ultimately found insufficient evidence to hold him responsible. Student’s main claims survived UMass Dartmouth’s motion to dismiss.
  • Ukwuachu v. State, No. 10-15-00376-CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 5783 (July 10, 2019).
    Appellant’s due process rights were violated at trial where the State furnished false testimony to secure a guilty verdict. A prosecutor’s use of false testimony to obtain a conviction violates an individual’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the State’s use of false testimony in both the cross-examination of a witness, and their closing argument was reasonably likely to affect the judgment of the jury. The court reversed Appellant’s conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial.
    CATEGORY: Due Process
  • Klocke v. Univ. of Texas, No. 18-10857 (5th Cir. 2019).
    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of summary judgment in favor of UTA dismissing plaintiff’s Title IX claim. UTA’s credibility assessment was reasonable and did not support an erroneous outcome. Allegations that UTA provided preferential treatment to complainant, a gay man, over respondent, a straight man, was not gender biased since discrimination on the basis of “sexuality” is not “sex discrimination” for purposes of Title IX.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  •  John Doe v. University of the Sciences, No. 19-358 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2019)
    Plaintiff Doe challenges University’s expulsion with an Amended Complaint, asserting the University had been motivated by gender bias and had imposed an unfair disciplinary process while investigating two claims of sexual misconduct filed by two separate complainants six days apart. The University used a single investigator to examine these two independent complaints of sexual conduct. The District Court dismissed Doe’s Amended Complaint, holding his contentions were conclusory.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Doe v. Case W. Reserve Uni., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74520 (N.D. Ohio 2019).
    John Doe filed suit against Case Western Reserve University for breach of contract and violations of Title IX after he was found responsible for sexual misconduct and suspended. Granting the University’s motion for summary judgment, the Northern District Court of Ohio dismissed John Doe’s breach of contract claim because he failed to specify a right in the University’s policy that was violated. Additionally, the court dismissed John Doe’s Title IX claim because he failed to demonstrate that the investigator’s dissertation about female sexual risk motivated the University’s decision to discipline Doe.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Fogel v. The University of the Arts, No. 18-5137 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2019)
    Alleged investigative and procedural failings, coupled with allegations the University treated complaints differently depending on the gender of the parties, was sufficient to state a claim for erroneous outcome under Title IX.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • John Doe v. Michigan State University, No. 1:19-cv-226 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2019)
    Court denied John Doe’s motion for a preliminary injunction because the interim suspension was temporary in nature, and Doe was afforded an opportunity to argue at a hearing why such a suspension was unnecessary.
    CATEGORY: Civil Litigation
  • Doe v. Rollins Coll., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7437 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

    Plaintiff John Doe sued Rollins College after he was found responsible of violating the College’s Title IX Sexual Misconduct Policy.  The College’s investigation favored Jane Roe’s position over John Doe’s and gave more weight to her witnesses than his. Rollins College failed to equally enforce its own policies despite receiving information that both Jane Roe and John Doe breached the College’s Sexual Misconduct Policy. Plaintiff’s Title IX claims and breach of contract claim survived the College’s motion to dismiss.
    CATEGORY: Sexual Misconduct
  • Jia v. Univ. of Miami, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23587 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2019)
    Plaintiff David Jia sued the University of Miami after he was found responsible for sexual misconduct and sanctioned.  Plaintiff alleged several procedural errors and mounting pressure against the University to take a hard line toward male students accused of sexual assault as the basis of his Title IX claim. The complainant and a professor also made defamatory statements and leaked confidential hearing documents to the media in an effort to get Plaintiff expelled.  Plaintiff brought eight claims against the University and the University subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.  The court dismissed Counts I, V, VI, VII, VIII and parts of Counts II and IV.  Plaintiff’s Title IX claims and portions of his defamation claims survived the University’s motion to dismiss. 
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Doe v. Princeton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4449 (D.N.J. 2019)
    Plaintiff John Doe brings suit against Princeton University for failure to postpone his Title IX interview until the proposed Title IX regulations take effect. After two postponements, Princeton scheduled the interview and John Doe filed a motion for preliminary injunction alleging four causes of action against Princeton. Although Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction was denied, his breach of contract claims were sustained. Whether Plaintiff’s extension request demonstrated “good cause” presents an issue of fact more appropriate for summary judgment.
    CATEGORY: Civil Litigation
  • Doe v. Ind. Univ. – Bloomington, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12966 (S.D. Ind. 2019)
    Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Indiana University-Bloomington after he was suspended for 4 years for sexual misconduct. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court concluded that the evidence did not support a claim of gender bias under Title IX. Plaintiff’s motion was denied for failure to show likelihood of success on the merits.  
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Doe v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., No. 1:18-CV-1374, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5396 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019)
    Facing a Title IX investigation, but before the date of the hearing, Plaintiff filed this action in the Northern District of New York and sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin RPI from holding a hearing before the proposed Title IX regulations become effective. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction; any harm Plaintiff has asserted is speculative, and not at all actual or imminent.
    CATEGORY: Sexual Misconduct
  • Doe v. Univ. of Miss, No. 3:18-CV-138-DPJ-FKB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7490 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 16, 2019)
    The University of Mississippi’s Motion to Dismiss was denied as to plaintiff, Andrew Doe’s Title IX and due process claims. Doe stated a viable claim for due process based on the biased nature of the training materials provided to the Judicial Council, materials that encouraged determinations in favor of the complainant, as well as an inability to cross-examine complainant. Doe’s Title IX claim was sustained due to a flawed investigation by the Title IX coordinator, who failed to collect the testimony of key witnesses, excluded exculpatory evidence, ignored clear notice of a biased panel member and was treated less favorable than his counterpart for engaging in the same conduct.
    CATEGORY: Due Process
  • Doe v. Regents of the University of California, 28 Cal.App.5th 44 (2018)
    Credibility determinations require effective cross-examination. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six found that UCSB denied student due process by failing to provide the accused with access to critical evidence, and not allowing adequate opportunity to cross examine witnesses or present evidence in their own defense.
    CATEGORY: Due Process
  • Doe v. Baylor Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169710 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2018)
    Plaintiffs alleged that Baylor had a policy of intentional discrimination where they discouraged victims from reporting their assaults; failed to adequately investigate assaults; misled and lied about options for reporting and accommodations; and obstructed access to medical and mental health treatment.
    CATEGORY: Discrimination
  • Doe v. The University of Southern Mississippi, Case 2:18-cv-0015-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sep. 26, 2018)
    University of Southern Mississippi ordered to immediately reinstate John Doe as a student in good standing after showing a substantial likelihood the lack of a live hearing with no cross-examination violated due process.
    CATEGORY: Due Process
  • Doe v. Baum 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018)
    Due process requires a hearing and opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Sixth Circuit holds that where the credibility of witnesses is in dispute and material to the outcome, due process requires a hearing and opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
    CATEGORY: Due Process
  • Doe v. Amherst College, 238 F.Supp3d 195 (D. Mass.2017). 
    Investigation failed to seek out exculpatory evidence.District Court denied school’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with regards to Doe’s allegations of insufficient evidence to find him responsible; an insufficient investigation; gender discrimination; erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, and deliberate indifference under Title IX.
    CATEGORY: Civil Litigation