Cases & Developments

Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former student at Virginia Tech, brought Title IX claims against the University and due process claims against two conduct officials after he was suspended for two years for sexual misconduct.  In dismissing his second amended complaint, the court held that his Title IX claim failed because he alleged no facts suggesting that the alleged erroneous outcome was attributable to gender discrimination.  His due process claims failed because his assertion of a property interest in his education at Virginia Tech was conclusory and the fact that he was suspended for two years was insufficient to allege that the University had altered or extinguished a legal right or status.   

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former student at Rosalind Franklin University, brought Title IX and contract claims against the University after he was expelled for sexual misconduct.  In dismissing his Title IX claim, the court held that alleged flaws in the University’s process demonstrate at most pro-victim bias and that reference to 2011 and 2014 guidance from the Department of Education that has since been repealed is insufficient to allege gender bias.  In dismissing his contract claim, the court held that plaintiff’s assertions of procedural shortcomings were insufficient to allege that the University’s decision was without a rational basis as required to overcome the reluctance of Illinois courts to interfere with the academic affairs of universities.   

Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a student at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU), brought a Title IX erroneous outcome claim against the University after he was given a four-month suspension with an additional eight-month disciplinary probation in 2020 for sexual misconduct that took place in 2019.  While the investigation was underway, FGCU adopted a new Title IX policy, but it continued to apply its older policy to plaintiff’s case.  As a result, plaintiff did not receive a copy of the investigative report and was unable to cross-examine the complainant because she did not attend the hearing.  In dismissing his complaint, the court found that plaintiff presented no facts showing that the application of the prior policy indicated gender bias.   

Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a former student-athlete at Franklin & Marshall College, brought Title IX and contract claims against the College after it suspended him for sexual misconduct.  In March 2020, while in Florida for a game, plaintiff was arrested and charged with sexual assault of a fellow student.  The College proceeded with a Title IX investigation, though plaintiff did not participate due to the pending criminal charge.  Days after the College found him responsible, Florida dropped its case for lack of evidence.  Concurrently, plaintiff complained to the College that a professor had sent him multiple suggestive and demanding emails.  The court dismissed plaintiff’s erroneous outcome claim, finding that although he had cast doubt on the accuracy of the College’s investigation, the assertion of a petition campaign against a fraternity on campus was insufficient to allege that external pressures created gender bias in his own investigation.  It dismissed his selective enforcement claim, finding that the professor against whom he had complained was not an adequate comparator.  The court dismissed his deliberate indifference claim, noting that (1) the College assigned a different professor to supervise his coursework, (2) it launched an investigation within two days of the report, and (3) he was suspended for most of the time it took the College to investigate the professor.  It permitted him to proceed on his contract claims noting that he had sufficiently alleged multiple departures from the College’s disciplinary policies and procedures.  

Order granting-in-part Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former student at the University of Mississippi, brought Title IX and due process claims against the University after it suspended him for engaging in sexual activity with an incapacitated individual.  The University’s investigative report presented conflicting statements as to the complainant’s level of intoxication, but it did not include discoverable exculpatory statements made to University Police.  Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the report prior to his hearing, and the complainant did not participate in the hearing.  The court granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his due process claim, finding that with a lack of objective evidence and conflicting statements about what happened “[a]t a minimum, [plaintiff] should have been allowed to submit written questions” to test the complainant’s credibility.  It denied summary judgment on his Title IX claim, however, holding, first, that conflicting statements as to whether the complainant was intoxicated and whether the encounter was consensual raised fact questions of erroneous outcome.  It further held that plaintiff raised fact questions of gender bias by citing (1) deposition testimony from a member of the disciplinary panel suggesting different standards for males and females regarding when alcohol use affects ability to consent; (2) alleged bias in training materials; (3) exclusion of potentially exculpatory statements and evidence from the investigative report; and (4) a lack of opportunity to cross examine the complainant.  

Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former student at Georgia College and State University (GCSU), brought Title IX and multiple other claims against the GCSU, alleging that she was sexually assaulted and harassed by another student, that GCSU unreasonably delayed its investigation and interim measures, and that the Vice President of Student Affairs unreasonably reversed the determination that the respondent was responsible for the assault. The court previously awarded summary judgment to GCSU on all of plaintiff’s claims except her Title IX claim. Defendants then sought summary judgment on the Title IX claim, citing Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. The court held that plaintiff’s damages related to counseling and psychiatric treatment to redress emotional injuries are unavailable under Title IX post-Cummings. It permitted her to proceed, however, with respect to her alleged economic losses related to tuition, lost income, and prepaid rent for her apartment near campus. 

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff, a student at Marshall University who had been the subject of multiple Title IX complaints, brought Title IX retaliation and selective enforcement, due process, equal protection, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the University and its Title IX Coordinator, asserting numerous procedural irregularities in the handling of the investigation and resolution of a complaint made by Jane Roe, against whom he had also made a cross-complaint.  The court permitted plaintiff’s retaliation claim to proceed, finding he had sufficiently alleged that the University solicited Roe’s complaint after he had succeeded in getting earlier complaints against him dismissed.  It permitted his selective enforcement claim to proceed, finding his allegations of “numerous, lopsided, and often significant procedural defects” sufficient to raise an inference that they resulted “not by simple human error.”  It similarly found his allegations of differences in the University’s handling of his complaint as compared to Roe’s sufficient to permit his equal protection claim to proceed.  It, however, dismissed his due process claim, finding the wrongs alleged insufficient to assert a constitutional deprivation.  Finally, it permitted his IIED claim against the Title IX Coordinator to proceed, finding he had sufficiently alleged violations of clearly established rights.