227 F. Supp. 3d 784
E.D. Mich.2017Background
- Student (Doe) at Univ. of Michigan accused of sexual misconduct after a female student alleged he had sex with her while she was too intoxicated to consent; police did not pursue criminal charges.
- OIE investigator concluded by preponderance there was insufficient evidence of incapacitation; complainant appealed to OSCR review panel.
- OSCR appeal panel reversed the investigator, finding the complainant was incapacitated and Doe should have known; panel’s finding led to a penalty negotiation in which Doe accepted voluntary withdrawal to avoid expulsion on his transcript.
- Doe filed § 1983, Title IX, First Amendment, and Michigan ELCRA claims challenging vagueness of “incapacitated,” procedural and substantive due process, alleged bias/conflict by a panel member, denial of live hearing/cross-examination, and gender discrimination.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Doe sought preliminary injunctions and evidentiary hearings to be readmitted.
- District court held (1) administrative record could be considered on 12(b)(6), (2) no viable constitutional or statutory claims were pleaded, denied injunctions, granted dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of “incapacitated” in policy | Definition too vague to give fair notice and allowed arbitrary application | Policy gives sufficient definition (lacking ability to make informed, rational judgments); not criminal code precision required | Court: definition not unconstitutionally vague; survives Bethel-level scrutiny |
| Procedural due process (review standard, live hearing, cross-exam., bias) | Panel applied de novo review, ignored investigator, denied live appearance/cross-exam, and had biased member (Baum) | School provided adequate notice and opportunity to be heard; internal policy deviations don’t create constitutional violations; allegations of bias are speculative | Court: procedural protections satisfied under Mathews; challenged deviations and bias allegations insufficient to state a due process violation |
| Substantive due process / arbitrary decision | Panel’s credibility findings were arbitrary, relied on speculation and gender bias, producing an irrational result | Panel’s decision had a rational factual basis (complainant’s account, corroborating witnesses, and Doe’s police admission) | Court: decision had "some factual basis"; no arbitrary-and-capricious action; substantive due process claim fails |
| Title IX and ELCRA discrimination theories (erroneous outcome, deliberate indifference, disparate impact, archaic assumptions) | Panel outcome resulted from sex bias and campus pressure; procedures for sexual-misconduct cases disproportionately impact men | No nonconclusory facts linking decision to gender bias; policy is facially neutral; news articles and remote events do not plausibly show coercion or pattern | Court: Plaintiff failed to plead plausible sex-based motivation or pattern; Title IX and state discrimination claims dismissed |
| First Amendment retaliation | Bazzy pressured Doe to accept withdrawal after his objection to penalty; that was retaliation for protected speech | Threat to expel preceded any protected speech; Bazzy communicated likely penalty not motivated by retaliation | Court: No causal connection; claim fails |
| Preliminary injunction / reinstatement | Immediate admission needed to prevent irreparable harm and allow degree completion | Plaintiff unlikely to succeed on merits; injunction would override university disciplinary process | Court: Plaintiff not likely to succeed; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (absolute immunity for certain federal adjudicators discussed)
- Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975) (school officials not entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not accepted at pleadings stage)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for what process is due)
- Flaim v. Medical College of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2005) (due process protections apply in higher-education disciplinary proceedings)
- Columbia Univ. v. Doe, 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (Title IX erroneous-outcome analysis and context for campus-pressured investigations)