Delbert v. Duncan, 923 F. Supp. 2d 256

Delbert, proceeding pro se, sues Arne Duncan and two District of Columbia DDS employees.
Plaintiff received DC VRP tuition subsidies and transit benefits from Jan 2010 through Mar 2012, funded by a Department of Education grant.
Burchette and Mitchell supervised Delbert at DDS.
Delbert alleges untimely or unprocessed transit benefits, unpaid tuition, misallocated funds, and two years of harassment and hostile environment.
Delbert filed OCR complaints on Aug 4, 2010 and Jun 6, 2011 alleging discrimination and retaliation, which DOE investigated with a 2011 Final Agency Decision finding no discrimination.
The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on February 14, 2013, concluding the pleadings failed to state plausible Title VII, Title IX, Title VI, or due process claims against the defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title VII claims survive against the agencies and individuals.	Delbert contends harassment/retaliation by supervisors violated Title VII.	No employment relationship with the agencies; supervisors cannot be liable under Title VII.	Claims fail against both agencies and individuals.
Whether Title IX retaliation claims are cognizable against the defendants.	Retaliation for protected activity violated Title IX.	No viable Title IX claim; no appropriate defendant or discrimination shown.	Title IX claims fail.
Whether Title VI claims are cognizable against the defendants and individuals.	Discrimination based on race, color, or national origin occurred.	Plaintiff failed to link adverse actions to race/national origin; no individual liability.	Title VI claims fail against all defendants.
Whether due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 survive.	Due process rights were violated by retaliatory actions.	Complaint lacks procedural or substantive due process allegations.	§ 1983 due process claims dismissed.
Whether there is any viable Title IX/VI claim against individuals.			No viable individual liability under Title IX/VI; dismissed.

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (due process expectations and entitlement concepts referenced)
Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property/entitlement due-process framework cited)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal pleading standard for pro se plaintiffs)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)