205 F.Supp.3d 1214
D. Or.2016Background
- Three University of Oregon male student‑athletes (Austin, Artis, Dotson) were accused of sexual assault; the Lane County DA declined criminal prosecution due to inconsistencies.
- University held administrative proceedings under its Student Conduct Code; plaintiffs chose an administrative conference (limited appeal rights) and were suspended for four to ten years and lost scholarship renewal.
- Plaintiffs sued individually named university administrators under § 1983 for due process and equal protection violations, sued the University under Title IX, and asserted Oregon tort and contract claims.
- Plaintiffs alleged the University (and officials) were gender‑biased against males, provided constitutionally inadequate process, and caused economic and reputational harm (including lost NBA prospects).
- District Court reviewed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, considering the complaint and incorporated public records (police report, university hearing materials).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity / Due process property interest | Plaintiffs: had a protected property/liberty interest in continued student status, scholarship renewal, athletic career requiring pre‑deprivation process | Defs: no clearly established constitutional right to the alleged higher‑education/scholarship renewals; process provided was adequate; qualified immunity applies | Court: Individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity; due process claims dismissed with prejudice against individuals (no clearly established right) |
| Title IX — Selective enforcement | Plaintiffs: University selectively prosecuted/suspended them because they are male; cited DA’s non‑prosecution and President’s statements | Defs: investigation/hearing independent of criminal decision; President’s comments not evidence of sex bias in process; allegations are conclusory | Court: Dismissed without prejudice — plaintiffs failed to plead plausible facts showing sex‑based selective enforcement |
| Title IX — Erroneous outcome | Plaintiffs: flawed process caused erroneous, predetermined outcome because of gender bias | Defs: aggressive enforcement ≠ sex discrimination; plaintiffs fail to show causal link to gender | Court: Dismissed without prejudice — no plausible inference that outcome resulted from sex discrimination |
| Title IX — Deliberate indifference | Plaintiffs: university was deliberately indifferent to male students’ rights because of sex | Defs: insufficient factual allegations; DA decision irrelevant | Court: Dismissed without prejudice — inadequate pleading of deliberate indifference |
| Equal Protection (§ 1983) | Artis and Dotson: defendants intentionally discriminated on basis of sex | Defs: no facts showing intent to discriminate | Held: Dismissed without prejudice — insufficient factual allegations of discriminatory intent |
| State torts — Negligence | Plaintiffs: university negligence caused economic loss (lost future income) | Defs: no special relationship exists; economic loss only not recoverable | Court: Dismissed without prejudice — no special relationship pleaded; damages theory inadequate |
| State torts — IIED | Plaintiffs: officials’ conduct (press conference, process) caused severe emotional distress | Defs: conduct not outrageous; no extreme transgression | Court: Dismissed with prejudice — IIED fails (no outrageous conduct or special relationship) |
| State torts — Tortious interference | Plaintiffs: interference with prospective NBA relationships | Defs: no pleaded relationship with NBA teams nor intent or improper means; OTCA notice issues | Court: Dismissed with prejudice — failure to plead intent/improper means and causal link |
| Breach of contract (scholarship non‑renewal) | Plaintiffs: reasonable expectation of renewal; inducement to transfer | Defs: scholarship terms were fixed‑term and fully performed; renewal discretionary | Court: Dismissed without prejudice — no material breach or contractual promise to renew alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of Twombly pleading standard)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (due process rights for student suspensions in public education)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process balancing test)
- Stretten v. Wadsworth Veterans Hosp., 538 F.2d 361 (9th Cir. 1976) (recognized property interest in continued professional training position)