Brandon Austin v. University of Oregon
925 F.3d 1133
9th Cir.2019Background
- Three male University of Oregon basketball players were accused in 2014 of nonconsensual sex by a female student; local publicity and campus protests followed.
- Lane County DA declined to prosecute; University conducted disciplinary proceedings under its Student Conduct Code (which defined “explicit consent”).
- The students chose an administrative conference (waiving a panel hearing), had counsel, access to files, and an appeal option; they were found responsible and suspended for at least four years and lost scholarship renewal.
- The students sued the University and administrators asserting Title IX sex‑discrimination claims (selective enforcement, erroneous outcome, deliberate indifference), due process claims, and state law claims.
- The district court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend; after further amendment the district court dismissed with prejudice and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading standard for Title IX at motion to dismiss: apply McDonnell Douglas prima facie or Rule 8(a) notice pleading? | Austin: McDonnell Douglas framework should inform pleading (or at least permit inference of discrimination). | Univ.: Rule 8(a) governs; McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary tool for later stages. | Rule 8(a) applies at 12(b)(6); McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary/summary‑judgment tool, not a pleading requirement. |
| Sufficiency of selective enforcement and disparate‑impact allegations under Title IX | Students: disciplinary decisions were grounded in gender bias given public outcry and President’s speech; enforcement is asymmetrical against men. | Univ.: Complaint lacks nonconclusory allegations linking discipline to sex or showing similarly situated female comparators. | Dismissed: allegations are conclusory and fail to plausibly connect discipline to sex or identify similarly situated female comparators. |
| Erroneous‑outcome / deliberate‑indifference Title IX theories | Students: outcome was erroneous and/or school was deliberately indifferent to sex discrimination in process/outcome. | Univ.: Complaint contains no specific factual allegations showing sex motivated error; deliberate‑indifference argument was not meaningfully briefed. | Erroneous‑outcome fails for lack of nonconclusory facts tying error to sex; deliberate indifference waived (not properly briefed). |
| Procedural due process: were students deprived without adequate process? | Students: administrative conference lacked constitutionally required procedural safeguards. | Univ.: Students received notice, counsel, file access, hearing choice, and appeal; they signed choice form and negotiated sanctions. | Dismissed: Mathews v. Eldridge balancing shows students received meaningful opportunity to be heard; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes prima facie framework and evidentiary burden‑shifting)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (Rule 8(a) notice pleading governs discrimination claims; prima facie McDonnell Douglas is evidentiary)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 8(a) pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal/conclusory versus factual allegations for plausibility)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (standards for Title IX selective enforcement and erroneous‑outcome claims)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (contrasting approach applying McDonnell Douglas at pleading stage)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (discusses interplay of Swierkiewicz, Iqbal, and McDonnell Douglas)