Doe v. Brown University
896 F.3d 127
1st Cir.2018Background
- In Nov. 2013 Doe (a Providence College freshman) was allegedly drugged at a bar, taken to a Brown University dorm, and sexually assaulted by three Brown students who were football players.
- Doe reported the assault to Providence police in Feb. 2014; Brown University police were present during her statement; police executed search warrants and recovered texts and images referencing rape.
- Brown notified Doe of a right to file under its Code of Student Conduct but declined to investigate under Title IX standards; Doe filed an OCR complaint in Oct. 2014.
- In June 2016 Brown informed Doe it had not completed its investigation and had abandoned disciplinary action; Doe later withdrew from Providence College, alleging fear and loss of educational opportunity due to Brown’s inaction.
- Doe sued Brown under Title IX seeking damages and equitable relief; district court granted Brown’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding Doe (a non-Brown student) failed to state a plausible Title IX claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-student who was assaulted on a university campus may bring a private Title IX claim against the university for deliberate indifference | Doe argued Title IX protects "any person" and Brown exercised substantial control over the harassers and context, so she may sue under Cannon/Davis frameworks | Brown argued Doe was not a participant in Brown’s programs/activities and thus cannot show she was "subjected to discrimination under" Brown’s educational program | Held: Doe failed to allege she participated in or sought to participate in Brown’s programs/activities; complaint did not plausibly show deprivation of access to Brown’s educational opportunities, so Title IX claim fails |
| Whether Title IX requires plaintiff to show deprivation of educational opportunities at the defendant institution | Doe contended Title IX jurisprudence does not require interference at the offending institution | Brown contended Title IX liability hinges on deprivation of access to the defendant’s educational program or activity | Held: Court relied on Bell and Davis to require that discrimination occur "under" the recipient’s programs/activities and deprive access to those educational opportunities |
| Whether the district court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings | Doe argued the allegations, taken as true, stated a plausible Title IX claim | Brown argued the complaint lacked a necessary factual predicate (participation/attempted participation) | Held: Affirmed — complaint fails on its face to state a plausible Title IX claim because it lacks allegations that Doe was deprived of access to Brown’s educational benefits |
| Whether Doe’s OCR complaint or pending criminal investigation affects Title IX pleading sufficiency | Doe noted OCR acceptance and ongoing investigation | Brown argued OCR/criminal process does not cure insufficient Title IX pleading against Brown | Held: These facts do not remedy the absence of allegations that Doe participated in or was deprived of Brown’s educational programs; claim still fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) (recognized implied private right of action under Title IX)
- North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512 (1982) (Title IX covers employment discrimination in federally funded education programs)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (limitations on recovery and standards for school liability under Title IX)
- Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (private damages liability requires harassment so severe and pervasive it denies access to educational opportunities)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX private right includes claims based on deliberate indifference to discrimination)