Cases & Developments

Opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part dismissal.  Plaintiff is a former student at Clarion University of Pennsylvania who was accused of sexual misconduct in Fall 2015.  While his University Conduct Board (UCB) hearing was pending, he was charged criminally.  The following year he was convicted, but in 2019 he was retried and acquitted.  In 2021, the University declined to reschedule his UCB hearing, citing that he did not wish to return as a student.  Proceeding pro se, he brought Title IX, due process, contract, negligence, and false arrest and imprisonment claims against the University and multiple officials, alleging that University Police withheld requested video footage and that the University declined to take steps after his acquittal to clear his record.  The district court dismissed his claims as time-barred.  The Third Circuit vacated dismissal of his due process claims, holding that they accrued not in 2015 when the University did not reschedule a postponed hearing, but in 2021 when a student conduct official emailed him that it would be “unnecessary at this time to move forward with a hearing.”  On these allegations, as well as the allegation that the University declined to correct his transcript to reflect his exoneration in 2019, it vacated dismissal also of his Title IX, contract, and negligence claims.  It affirmed dismissal, however, of false arrest and imprisonment claims.  The remaining claims were remanded for further proceedings.  

Resolution Agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Case Western Reserve University resolving an investigation into the University’s response to reports of sexual harassment and assault.  The DOJ investigated the University’s “response to reports of student-on-student and employee-on-student sexual harassment, including sexual assault, between academic years 2017-2018 and 2020-2021.”  Through the Resolution Agreement, the University agreed to multiple measures, including that it will (1) “stop and prevent the recurrence of known sexual harassment that creates a hostile educational environment;” (2) “provide clear, consistent, and equitable policies and grievance procedures that provide for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging sex discrimination;” (3) “prohibit retaliation against students and employees under Title IX;” (4) “ensure that the Title IX Coordinator has necessary autonomy and authority to fulfill [their] duties;” (5) “ensure that the University has the confidential resources and advisors necessary to meet student and employee needs;” (6) “deliver training to students and employees to ensure they understand their rights and the University’s obligations under Title IX;” and (7) “foster greater coordination between University departments to ensure that the University’s obligations under Title IX are met.”

Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff, a former student at New York University, brought Title IX and promissory estoppel claims against the University after he was expelled for sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, stalking, and repeated violations of the University’s no-contact directive.  After his appeal failed and his expulsion took effect, plaintiff filed his own Title IX complaint against the complainant, which the University declined to consider.  In granting summary judgment to the University on his Title IX claim, the court found plaintiff identified no evidence supporting his assertion that gender was a reason the University treated his post-expulsion complaint differently from the original complaint against him.  Turning to plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim based on his assertion that his University-appointed advisor in the Title IX process assured him that “under no circumstances would [he] be expelled” for the allegations, the court held that he could not demonstrate reasonable reliance on such a statement, even if it had been made as a clear and unambiguous promise. 

Opinion affirming summary judgment and a jury verdict in favor of the College.  Plaintiff, a former student at Rollins College, brought Title IX and contract claims against the College after it sanctioned him for violating its sexual misconduct policy.  The district court granted summary judgment to the College on his Title IX claims, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the College on his contract claim, finding that taking longer than the 60-days allowed in its policy to complete the investigation was not a material breach.  In affirming summary judgment in favor of the College on plaintiff’s Title IX selective enforcement claim, the Eleventh Circuit held that the complainant, who had alleged she was incapacitated from alcohol, was not similarly situated because plaintiff never claimed to have been incapacitated.  In affirming on his Title IX erroneous outcome claim, the court noted (1) that alleged stereotyping in the College’s training materials cannot be imputed to the independent investigator who never saw them, (2) that the pressure of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter had dissipated when it was rescinded before the College launched its investigation of plaintiff, and (3) that the College had only investigated complaints against males because they had received only complaints against males.  Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on the jury’s finding that the breach of the College’s 60-day rule for completion of the investigation was not material, noting that the investigative report addressed the evidentiary concerns plaintiff suggested he might have neglected as a result of the longer duration. 

Opinion reversing denial of judgment as a matter of law.  Plaintiff, a student at Chadron College, brought a Title IX deliberate indifference claim against the College, alleging that college officials responded inadequately to a report that a fellow student had sexually assaulted her on two separate occasions.  A jury awarded plaintiff $300,000 and attorney’s fees, and the district court denied the College’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.  In reversing, the Eighth Circuit found that the College’s steps to issue a no-contact order; to verify that the two were not in classes together; to initiate an investigation; to ban the respondent from the building where plaintiff worked on campus; to accommodate plaintiff academically; to sanction the respondent with probation, counseling, and behavioral classes; to offer plaintiff a plain-clothed escort on campus; and to seek her input on additional assistance or accommodations were “prompt, extensive, substantive, directed to protect and assist [plaintiff], and not clearly unreasonable given the circumstances known to Chadron.”