Doe v. Amherst College, 238 F. Supp. 3d 195

Background

"John Doe," an Amherst College student, was accused in 2013 by Sandra Jones of sexual assault stemming from a February 2012 encounter; Doe claims he was blacked out and has no memory of the event.
Amherst used recently revised Student Handbook Policy and Procedures (May 2013) adopting a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and promising investigations that are “thorough, impartial and fair.”
The College hired an external investigator (Kurker); a Hearing Board found Doe responsible and expelled him; Doe appealed and the College denied reopening after he later produced contemporaneous text messages he says were exculpatory.
Doe sued the College and four administrators alleging breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith, Title IX violations (erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, deliberate indifference), §1981 race discrimination, MCRA, defamation, negligence, and NIED.
The court on a Rule 12(c) motion: dismissed claims for tortious interference, §1981, MCRA, defamation, negligence, and NIED; allowed breach of contract and covenant claims to proceed; and denied dismissal of Title IX claims and request for injunctive relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract (Student Handbook promises)	Handbook promised a fair, thorough, impartial investigation and process; the investigator failed to obtain exculpatory texts and hearing procedures were biased, so contract breached	Defendant says Handbook language was followed and Policy bars intoxication as an excuse; no contractual duty to reopen after appeal	Denied judgment on pleadings as to breach claim for (1) sufficiency of process and (2) interpretation re: blackout vs. responsibility; granted re: right to reopen post-appeal (no contractual provision)
Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing	College’s process and conduct deprived Doe of promised benefits of the handbook	College argued no breach; academic deference applies	Denied judgment on pleadings — claim survives
Title IX (erroneous outcome / selective enforcement / deliberate indifference)	Procedural flaws, activist pressure, and failure to investigate exculpatory info show gender bias, selective enforcement, and deliberate indifference	Defendants deny gender-motivated bias and assert procedures met Title IX expectations	Denied judgment on pleadings — all three Title IX theories survive to proceed
§1981 race discrimination	Disproportionate punishment of male students of color supports racial-discrimination inference	Defendants: allegations too conclusory; no comparator showing different treatment	Granted judgment on pleadings — §1981 claim dismissed
Defamation (campus email; transcript notation)	Email and transcript implied an unfair process and falsely harmed reputation	Defendants: email and transcript statements were true and concerned public safety; constitutional protections apply	Granted judgment on pleadings — defamation claims dismissed as statements were true/public concern or lacked malice allegations

Key Cases Cited

Walker v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 840 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.) (student handbook reasonable-expectation contract standard)
Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 735 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. 2000) (interpretation of student handbook promises)
Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (framework for Title IX erroneous-outcome and selective-enforcement claims)
Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (deliberate indifference standard under Title IX)
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2005) (Title IX private right of action for discrimination)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (Iqbal pleading/causation principles)
Blackstone v. Cashman, 860 N.E.2d 7 (Mass. 2007) (actual malice standard for corporate officials in tortious interference)
Goodman v. Bowdoin Coll., 380 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2004) (elements for race discrimination claims under §1981)