Doe v. Case Western Reserve University, 1:14-cv-02044

This case involves John Doe, a Lerner College student, against Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Lerner College, and Dr. Kathleen Franco.
Plaintiff alleges Title IX violations, breach of contract, and various state-law claims arising from disciplinary proceedings following an alleged sexual encounter with Jane Roe.
Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Plaintiff fails to state a Title IX claim and related relief is unavailable.
The court analyzes Plaintiff's Title IX claims under various standards (erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, deliberate indifference) and finds no sex-based bias plausibly shown.
The court also dismisses Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment and injunctive relief requests and declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.
Judgment: Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety for failure to state a Title IX claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title IX claims survive under erroneous outcome theory	Plaintiff contends discriminatory outcomes and procedural flaws show bias.	Defendants contend no plausible sex-based bias is shown.	Title IX claims dismissed; no plausible bias shown.
Whether selective enforcement theory supports Title IX claim	Jane Roe is not a sufficient comparator; policy disproportionately affects males.	No valid comparator showing gender bias; allegations insufficient.	Selective enforcement theory fails; Title IX claim dismissed.
Whether deliberate indifference standard adds a separate Title IX claim	Deliberate indifference demonstrates bias in investigation and adjudication.	Deliberate indifference is a standard within Title IX claims, not a separate claim.	Merged with Title IX claim; dismissed as to Title IX.
Whether declaratory judgment claims are appropriate	Declaration invalidates disciplinary findings.	No live controversy since Title IX claim is defective.	Declaratory judgment claim dismissed.
Whether injunctive relief is available and supplemental jurisdiction retained	Reinstate student status and remove violations; seek remedies.	No merits underpinning equitable relief; no federal claims to sustain.	Injunctive relief denied; supplemental jurisdiction declined for state-law claims.

Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard—plausibility rather than mere possibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility required to state a claim; facts must support conclusions)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1998) (private Title IX remedy requires actual bias or indifference by school authorities)
Mallory v. Ohio Univ., 76 F. App’x 634 (6th Cir. 2003) (private Title IX action for discriminatory disciplinary proceedings; standards for bias and enforcement)
Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (erroneous outcome and discriminatory bias standards under Title IX)
Doe v. Univ. of the S., 687 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Tenn. 2009) (outcomes-based standards for Title IX claims in disciplinary settings)