​John Doe was expelled after being found responsible for stalking, sexual harassment, and sexual exploitation.  The Court denied in part NYU’s motion to dismiss, holding that John stated a claim for Title IX erroneous outcome, Title IX selective enforcement, NYCHRL, and promissory estoppel for receiving a sanction above and beyond what John’s advisor promised.

Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title IX retaliation claim because Plaintiff was unable to prove that she was engaged in a protected activity. No part of Title IX designates participation in a sexual harassment investigation on the side of the accused as protected activity.

Plaintiff Jane Doe survives Montana State University’s motion to dismiss. The Court held that the general pleading standard of FRCP Rule 9(b) applies to allegations of intent in Title IX cases. The Court also found sufficient allegations to support a finding of an official policy or custom of discrimination.

Investigator’s personal statements on Twitter did not call into question their ability to review the allegations objectively. Without evidence of individualized gender bias affecting Plaintiff’s disciplinary proceedings, there was no triable issue on sex discrimination.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.  

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.