Cases & Developments

Opinion affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, John Doe, a former student at Rice University, brought contract and Title IX claims against the University after he was disciplined for recklessly exposing Jane Roe, a consensual sexual partner, to herpes. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Doe’s contract claims, finding he had not alleged a breach of the University’s Code of Conduct and noting that the Code expressly provided that its procedures “are not those used in court cases and are not intended to create contractual rights.” Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment on Doe’s three asserted theories under Title IX. It found a material fact question as to erroneous outcome, noting that the record supported that Doe had informed Roe of his history with herpes. It found a question of selective enforcement support by allegations that the University did not investigate Doe’s claim that Roe had already contracted herpes and did not warn him of the risk she posed to him. Finally, it found a question as to archaic assumptions in the apparent expectation that it was Doe’s responsibility to explain to Roe the risk associated with consensual sex, even though the record indicated that she later explained to him how the herpes virus can remain dormant.    

Opinion affirming denial of administrative writ of mandate. Plaintiff, a student at California Polytechnic State University, San Louis Obispo, sought an administrative writ of mandate to overturn his one-year suspension for sexual misconduct, based on allegations of an unfair hearing and findings and sanctions that lacked substantial evidence. In affirming denial of the mandate, the California Court of Appeals held that the University followed its hearing procedures, which afforded plaintiff sufficient opportunity to respond to the charges and evidence and submit questions for the complainant through a hearing officer. It also found that the complainant’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the hearing officer was in a position to evaluate the credibility of all testimony. 

Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, brought a Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the University, alleging an inadequate response to her reports of abuse, harassment, and relationship violence perpetrated by J.W., a former romantic partner who was also a member of the Swimming and Diving Team. The court held the plaintiff’s claims were time barred. Plaintiff asserted that she was unaware of missteps in the University’s response to her reports of abuse until May 2022, when it released an independent report on alleged sexual misconduct at the University. The court held, however, that her post-assault deliberate indifference claim accrued no later than Fall 2018 when, after having already reported the abuse, she decided not to live in the dorm out of continued fear of J.W.’s presence.