Cases & Developments

Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former student at Macalester College, brought Title IX claims against the College after he was expelled for domestic violence, stalking, and harassment of his former girlfriend, Jane Roe.  In granting summary judgment in favor of the College, the court held that plaintiff’s selective enforcement theory failed, finding that Roe was not a similarly situated comparator in large part because the College dropped its investigation against her due to plaintiff’s own lack of cooperation.  The court also held that plaintiff’s assertion of procedural irregularities failed, finding (1) that the College did not investigate his “consent” defense because he had consistently denied Roe’s allegations and (2) that College did not interview all of the plaintiff’s suggested witnesses because its practice was to interview only witnesses who could offer “firsthand knowledge” of the facts at issue.  

Memorandum and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  Plaintiff, a graduate of and former cardiology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), sought to recover damages related to alleged humiliation, mental anguish, suffering, anxiety, and inconvenience she asserts resulted from the deliberate indifference of UNMC officials to her complaints of sexual harassment by other UNMC fellows.  In granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the University, the court held that the Supreme Court’s holding in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. (2022) also applies to claims for emotional distress damages under Title IX and that plaintiff’s claimed damages, accordingly, are unrecoverable.  

Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a Columbia University student who alleged she was sexually assaulted by John Roe in January 2019, brought a deliberate indifference claim against the University after an investigation and hearing determined that Roe was not responsible for violating the University’s Gender-Based Misconduct (GBM) Policy because she was able to consent to the sexual encounter that gave rise to the allegations.  In granting the University’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiff’s allegation that her avoidance of the University’s main library out of fee of seeing Roe did not deprive her of access to an educational opportunities or benefits because the University had nearly two dozen other libraries she could use.  Although plaintiff alleged that the University’s GBM Policy in 2019 was ambiguous and did not provide her with the ability to present expert witnesses and to cross-examine Roe, the Court held that her claim that the University responded unreasonably failed, noting its timely response when she filed her complain, extensive investigation, subsequent detailed report and hearing, and opportunity for plaintiff to appeal, which she declined.

Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff, a student at Oberlin College, brought Title IX selective enforcement, contract, and negligence claims against the College and its Title IX Coordinator after a female student alleged that plaintiff had engaged in sexual misconduct with her when she was intoxicated. The College’s investigation subsequently found plaintiff had not violated its Sexual Misconduct Policy. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed on his selective enforcement claim, finding he sufficiently alleged that even though his accuser believed plaintiff was intoxicated at the time, the college did not investigate her for misconduct too. It cautioned that to show that he and his accuser were similarly situated, and thereby to survive summary judgment, plaintiff must show that they were equally intoxicated at the time. The court also permitted plaintiff’s breach of contract claim to proceed related to the College’s alleged departures from its disciplinary policies, but it dismissed his negligence claim as duplicative of his contract claim.

Report and Recommendation granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is a Title IX complainant at King’s College, and defendants are the respondent and his attorney. Respondent was expelled for engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse with complainant. As the investigation proceeded, respondent retained counsel and subsequently filed a Title IX counterclaim against complainant, asserting that she had previously engaged in sexual violence against him. During that investigation, however, he recanted or modified many of his initial allegations. Plaintiff sued defendants, alleging, among other things, that the Title IX counterclaim was an abuse of process. Applying Pennsylvania tort law, the Magistrate Judge permitted the claim to proceed, finding both that the federal Title IX regulations require sufficient procedural protections to constitute a quasi-judicial proceeding and that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that defendants knowingly pursued meritless assertions.  

Order denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff, a former student at Whitman College, brought Title IX, contract, and state Consumer Protection Act claims against the College and sought a TRO, after he was expelled for sexual misconduct. Plaintiff’s numerous factual allegations included internal and external pressures to prevent sexual misconduct, disproportionate adverse findings related to male students, unfair credibility and relevancy determinations, and sanctioning irregularities. The court, however, found none of these assertions sufficient to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Though it found that plaintiff established the likelihood of irreparable harm, the equities, including the burden on the College’s interest in maintaining and enforcing Title IX procedures, weighed against the TRO. Finally, the court held that a TRO was not in the public interest, noting that it “would embolden the targets of Whitman’s Title IX investigations to file suit in the hopes of attaining injunctive relief without providing evidence that the investigation was discriminatory” and “would likely discourage Title IX complainants from coming forward, placing the entire Title IX process at Whitman in doubt.”