Doe v. Am. Univ., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171086
10/20/2020John 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)
10/19/20Defendant’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
10/5/20On 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. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 19-50737, 2020 WL 3634519 (5th Cir. July 6, 2020)
07/21/2020Jane 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)
06/16/2020Student’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.
Doe v. Syracuse University, No. 5:17-cv-00787-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020)
05/12/2020John 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.
Lipian v. Univ. of Mich., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62423 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2020)
04/21/2020Student’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.
Feibleman v. Trs. of Columbia Univ., No. 19-CV-4327 (VEC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31499 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020)
03/10/2020Plaintiff’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.
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)12/31/2019John 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. Johnson & Wales University, C.A. NO. 18-CV-00106-MSM-LDA (D.R.I. Nov. 26, 2019)
12/04/2019John 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.
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.
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.
Title IX Blog