Cases & Developments

Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former undergraduate student and baseball player at Franklin and Marshall College brought contract and Title IX claims against the College related to his differential experiences as a respondent to, and a complainant in, a pair of sexual misconduct complaints. In spring 2022, while attending an away game on behalf of the College, plaintiff was arrested for sexual battery of a minor. The College initiated a Title IX investigation, in which plaintiff declined to participate pending the outcome of his criminal case. After initially granting an extension for the conduct meeting, the College proceeded in plaintiff’s absence and found him responsible for violation of its sexual misconduct policy. Later, the criminal court issued a “No Bill” as to the sexual battery charge that plaintiff attached to his appeal to the College, and while the underlying finding of a policy violation was affirmed, the College shortened plaintiff’s suspension. During the same semester, plaintiff received emails from a professor sent through her private, non-College email account. Plaintiff’s father reported the harassment, the College investigated, and the professor was terminated. The court granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title IX claims, finding relevant factual distinctions, rather than gender bias or deliberate indifference, animated the differential procedural cadence between the two investigations. First, the court reasoned that a female student arrested for arson was “so [factually] different that she is not a useful comparator,” and the professor was also “not a valid comparator because a professor and an undergraduate student hold … different roles” (internal quotations omitted). Next, the court found that delays attributable to plaintiff’s decision not to initiate a formal complaint against the professor and refusal to participate in the investigation, and due to the professor’s voluntary medical leave did not suggest deliberate indifference by the College. Finally, the court reasoned found that plaintiff presented no evidence that he was prejudiced by the slower pace of the second investigation as he was already suspended from the prior investigation. The court denied summary judgment on the contract claim, finding a factual dispute as to whether plaintiff was provided a “fair and equitable process” when he forewent participation in the first misconduct hearing to avoid forgoing his Fifth Amendment rights in the pending criminal litigation.