John Doe v. Michigan State University, No. 1:19-cv-226 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2019)
06/04/2019Court 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.
Doe v. Rollins Coll., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7437 (M.D. Fla. 2019)
04/02/2019Plaintiff 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)
03/19/2019Plaintiff 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.
Doe v. Princeton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4449 (D.N.J. 2019)
03/05/2019Plaintiff 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.
Doe v. Ind. Univ. – Bloomington, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12966 (S.D. Ind. 2019)
02/26/2019Plaintiff 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.
Doe v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., No. 1:18-CV-1374, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5396 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2019)
02/05/2019Facing 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)
01/16/2019The 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.
Doe v. Regents of the University of California, 28 Cal.App.5th 44 (2018)
10/09/2018Credibility 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.
Doe v. Baylor Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169710 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2018)
09/29/2018Plaintiffs 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.
Doe v. The University of Southern Mississippi, Case 2:18-cv-0015-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sep. 26, 2018)
09/26/2018University 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.
Doe v. Baum 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018)
09/07/2018Due 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.
Doe v. Amherst College, 238 F.Supp3d 195 (D. Mass.2017).
02/28/2018Investigation 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.
Title IX Blog