Round-up of Decisions in Disciplined-Student Cases

In the last half-year, federal district courts around the country have issued decisions in cases against universities filed by students disciplined for sexual assault.  We blogged about two such decisions when they occurred; courts in separate cases dismissed Title IX and other claims against both Columbia University and Vassar.  Besides these two, several more courts have issued rulings in disciplined-student cases in 2015, warranting an overdue "roundup" from me. The details of these cases are presented below, but by way of summary, in all of these cases, the plaintiff's Title IX claims were dismissed early in the litigation. As for claims under other sources of law, one decision (Sterrett) allowed a plaintiff to continue to litigate a procedural due process claim, though in a considerably narrowed form, and others (Peloe and Doe) foreclosed due process claims entirely because the student did not exhaust other remedies first by appealing within the university. Another decision (Marshall) summarily dismissed a student's First Amendment claim. State law claims were not generally represented among these decisions, except in one case (Knox) where the court remanded state law claims because it was without jurisdiction to consider them once the federal claims had been dismissed.

• A male student at Knox College was disciplined for sexual assault of two female students.  In his lawsuit against the college, he argued that there were procedural deficiencies in the grievance proceeding that resulted in his discipline, such as not being able to present all exculpatory evidence or cross-examine one of his accusers who did not attend the hearing.  Without deciding whether the alleged procedural deficiencies constituted violations of state law (claims over which the court had no jurisdiction), the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Title IX claim due to the plaintiff’s failure to allege specific facts that support a conclusion that the university intentionally deprived the plaintiff of procedural rights because of his sex.  Blank v. Knox College, 2015 WL 328602 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2015). 

• A male student at the University of Michigan sued university officials involved in the process by which he was suspended for raping a female student, which he denied having done. His lawsuit challenged various alleged procedural inadequacies as violations of both Title IX and the Constitution's due process clause. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s Title IX claim because he did not include any specific allegations to support his claim that procedural inadequacies were motivated by gender bias.  But his due process claim was only partially dismissed. He successfully alleged--and will thus be allowed to continue to litigate--his claim that the university failed to provide him adequate notice of the claims against him prior to his initial meeting with the investigator who prepared a report in which she concluded he was responsible for rape (though it did dismiss his claim that notice was inadequate as to the hearing that occurred later).  The court dismissed his claim that the university violated his right to due process by failing to provide him an opportunity to present his side of the matter.  However, this opportunity occurred after the investigator prepared her report, so the court found "plausible" his claim that he should have had greater opportunity to participate in the process prior to that time. Sterrett v. Cowan, 2015 WL 470601 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2015).

• After a disciplinary hearing, the University of Cincinnati found the plaintiff, a male student, responsible for sexual assault and imposed sanctions.  The plaintiff sued, challenging the fact that university officials limited the evidence he was able to present at the hearing and did not allow him to record it. Because he sued in federal court before taking advantage of the opportunity to appeal the outcome of his disciplinary hearing to various university officials, the court dismissed his due process claim as premature. Similarly, the court dismissed his Title IX claim, which alleged that the university reached an “erroneous outcome” in his case due to gender bias. Even if the plaintiff was correct about the role of bias, the court refused to hold the university responsible for procedural errors that the plaintiff did not seek to correct through the appeal process that is in place for exactly that reason. Peloe v. University of Cincinnati, 2015 WL 728309 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2015).

• A male student was suspended for one semester for sexually harassing a female student, conduct that largely consisted of him pestering her to go out with him or have sex with him.  In seeking a preliminary injunction against the suspension, the plaintiff alleged that the university violated his First Amendment rights to free speech, but the court rejected this argument based on precedent that allows the regulation of sexually harassing speech. The court also rejected his Title IX argument was because he failed to allege any facts that could support a conclusion that gender bias played a role in the university's decision to sanction him. For example, there were no alleged comments by university officials conveying such bias, nor allegations that the university had a motive (such as impressing OCR) to impose unwarranted discipline on a male student. Marshall v. Ohio University, 2015 WL 1179955 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2015)

• A federal court in Ohio granted Miami University's motion to dismiss Title IX claims filed by a male student expelled for sexual assault because he did not sufficiently allege that the university's disciplinary proceedings were biased against him because of sex.  One aspect of his complaint alleged that a campus safety officer encouraged a (presumably exculpatory) witness not to testify, an allegation that the court admitted was "troubling" but still void of gender bias ("These facts pleaded against [the officer] do not suggest a gender bias against males so much as against students accused of sexual assault."). The court also refused to interpret allegations that the University had been publically criticized for failing to address sexual assault as an allegation that the University was biased against the plaintiff on the basis of sex. Sahm v. Miami University, 2015 WL 2406065 (S.D. Ohio May 20, 2015)

• The University of South Florida had sent notice via email (twice and with “high importance”) to a student who had been accused of sexual assault and requested his participation in the investigation and disciplinary process. The student deleted the emails without reading them because he did not recognize the name of the sender, resulting in his summary expulsion. The student then brought a due process and a Title IX claim against USF, both of which were dismissed. The court rejected his due process claim on the grounds that it was premature to sue the university for lack of due process without first going through all of the appeal procedures the university provides. The court also dismissed the student’s Title IX claim because he did not allege any intentional discrimination on the university’s part, only that its procedure for handing sexual assault has a disparate impact on male students, a claim not recognized under Title IX’s private right of action.  Though the court gave the plaintiff permission to amend his complaint to include allegations of intentional sex discrimination, it predicted that such efforts would be "futile." Doe v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees, 2015 WL 3453753 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2015).

A new type of punishment?

Reporters frequently ask us what the punishment is for failure to comply with Title IX regulations. And we always say something to the effect of "loss of federal funding...but that's never happened."
I continue to believe that one of the informal punishments, or at the very least, negative consequence, is the bad publicity that comes from accusations and findings of violations. In the situation many schools are facing with the visibility of complaints based on the handling of sexual assault cases, this "punishment" is fairly light, especially for victims of the crimes and their mishandling.
But the effect of public opinion may be having a larger impact than many schools would like. And an activist group called Ultra Violet is attempting to sway public opinion--specifically the opinion of applicants--by taking out ads aimed at informing students about the problems with sexual assault on various campuses. They have thus far targeted Dartmouth, Occidental, Berkeley, University of Michigan, Brandeis, American University, FSU, and Harvard.

There doesn't seem to be a rationale for why they have picked these particular schools
The group is claiming responsibility for the 14% drop in applicants to Dartmouth this year. I think that it would be difficult to prove a direct cause and effect there. It's not as if Dartmouth doesn't already have a reputation. Long before the recent revelations and investigations, there was publicity about the Dartmouth fraternities and their effect on campus culture. (Also, other schools are seeing double digit drops in applications as well. Inside Higher Ed  reported a similar drop at Quinnipiac which is being attributed to the economy.)
Regardless, the campaign by Ultra Violet is drawing attention, though some schools don't need any help.

The president of Occidental College, which is still under investigation and has already agreed to a settlement for Clery Act violations, has noted the potential damage to the college's reputation. Ironically, the administration's focus on a positive marketing message has caused greater negative publicity with charges that administrators have not done enough to actually remedy the problems on campus. The attention to image and legal defenses has drawn continued protests by students and alums. Donations are down and trustees are not too happy with all the negative press. At a trustee event a few weeks ago, trustees got into it with student, faculty, and alumni protesters who stood outside the event with signs expressing solidarity with victims. One trustee demanded names of rapists from the protesters and questioned their integrity when they told him to go ask administrators.

The tactics of Ultra Violet have been called "aggressive," a problematic description when it comes to female activism. I haven't seen anyone call Occidental's campaign to improve their image by hiring outside PR consulting firms (and refusing to report the costs) or confiscating the computers, phones, and records of professors as aggressive. And it's not as if the passive responses to campus sexual assault that so many schools now stand accused of has been successful.

University of Michigan, Michigan State Both Face Title IX Investigation

Investigators from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights will visit Michigan State this week as part of an investigation into the university's policies and practices for handling reports of sexual assault on campus.  Details about this matter are sparse and it is unclear at least to me whether this investigation is responsive to complaint received by OCR, or initiated by the agency itself. 

The University of Michigan is also under investigation for its handling of student's 2009 report that she had been raped by a football player, Brendan Gibbons. Gibbons was expelled in December for violating the university's sexual misconduct policy.  My guess is that the timing of this result is what gave rise to the complaint, as Title IX requires schools to conduct disciplinary proceedings in a prompt and equitable manner.

Sexual Assault Roundup

There's been lots of news about individual colleges' policies and practices regarding sexual assault.   Here is a brief roundup.
 
In (albeit anecdotal) evidence of colleges taking sexual assault grievances seriously, the University of Michigan expelled a football player for sexual assault. 

Amherst College expelled a student as well.

At the University of Connecticut, OCR is confirmed to have opened an investigation in response to complaints of its mishandling of sexual assault.  A private lawsuit is also underway. 

Swarthmore announced changes to its sexual assault and harassment policies, in response internal investigations prompted by a federal complaint filed last year. 

University of North Carolina reports a stronger partnership between its department of public safety and other parts of campus in support of a more effective sexual assault response. 

Iowa State students are now required to take an online training on violence prevention, as part of its universities efforts to comply with requirements of Title IX.  

The University of Colorado announced the positive results of an external review of its Title IX policies, while setting goals to exceed the minimum requirements of compliance. Separately, the university made news by removing the chair of its department of philosophy, amid allegations of sexual harassment.

Harassment cases roundup

Here are summaries of November decisions in Title IX sexual harassment cases: 

A federal judge in Massachusetts refused to dismiss a Title IX case against Stoughton Public Schools, stemming from an incident in which students circulated nude photographs of the female student plaintiff, precipitating name-calling like "slut" and "whore."  The judge agreed that the plaintiff's allegations, if proven to a jury, could satisfy both the requirement of hostile environment, given that many students were involved and that the hostility was prolonged over many months, as well as deliberate indifference, since the plaintiff claims that the school did not impose any discipline on the students involved, or even call their parents.  Doe v. Town of Stoughton, 2013 WL 6195794 (D. Mass. Nov. 25, 2013).

A federal judge in Arizona determined that a graduate student plaintiff's entire Title IX claim against the Arizona Board of Regents was timely, even though some of the instances of harassment and retaliation she experienced after breaking off a relationship with a faculty member were outside the two-year statute of limitations.  Hostile environment harassment claims constitute a "continuing violation."  Under this designation, since some components of her hostile environment claim took place within two years before she filed suit, the court will consider the entire timeline of harassing events.   Kunzi v. Arizona Board of Regents, 2013 WL 6178210 (D. Ariz. Nov. 25, 2013).  

Similarly, a case against the University of Michigan was allowed to proceed despite a motion for the university that argued that the case was untimely.  There, the plaintiff, a female engineering graduate student, alleged that she was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination by her male peers, as well as retaliation by university faculty and employees. The court denied the university's motion to dismiss because even though the harassment began earlier than the statute of limitations period, the plaintiff alleged some instances of harassment, deliberate indifference, and retaliation that occurred within the limitations period.  Dibbern v. University of Michigan, 2013 WL 6068808 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2013).
 
A student's Title IX case against the Board of Education in Prince George's County, Maryland, was dismissed after a court ruled that a reasonably juror could not find evidence of deliberate indifference on the part of school officials.  In this case, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted by another boy after experiencing (and reporting) several earlier instances of sexualized misconduct by that same boy.  Yet school officials responded to each earlier instance in a reasonable manner, addressing them by such means as talking to the offending student, assigning the offending student to separate classes, requiring that he serve a five-day in-school suspension.  According to the court, imposing liability on the school on these facts would discourage schools from imposing any punishment other than expulsion for any instance of sexual harassment regardless of its nature. Doe v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's County, 2013 WL 6065269 (D. Md. Nov. 18, 2013).  

A female wrestler's Title IX claim against her school district can go forward, after a court determined that her complaint adequately alleged that she had put proper school officials on notice of sexualized and gender-biased harassing comments by the wrestling team's two assistant coaches.  Moeck v. Pleasant Valley Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 6048131 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2013).