243 F. Supp. 3d 875
N.D. Ohio2017Background
- John Doe, a former student at the College of Wooster, was accused by Jane Roe of sexual misconduct from an incident in Nov. 2014; Roe filed a report in May 2015 and later amended it to allege rape in Dec. 2015.
- Wooster’s Title IX coordinator (Johnston) delayed significant investigation steps over summer 2015, met with Roe in December, encouraged her to proceed, then initiated an investigation and retained an outside investigator; Doe was notified of a complaint in December and received the investigator’s report on Feb. 19, 2016.
- A disciplinary hearing was held March 2, 2016; Doe alleges he was denied counsel, prevented from presenting certain evidence/witnesses, was presumed guilty, and ultimately expelled.
- Doe sued Wooster (breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation) and Roe (intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation); the Court addressed Wooster’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and Doe’s motion to add a Title IX claim.
- The Court concluded the Student Handbook governed the parties’ contractual relationship and considered the Handbook, the Policy, and the Dear Colleague Letter on the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe stated a breach of contract based on procedural defects in Wooster’s disciplinary process | Wooster violated express and implied Handbook terms (30‑day filing window, inadequate notice, lack of threshold review, biased investigation/hearing, presumption of guilt, denial of counsel, insufficient evidence) | The Handbook does not create the procedural rights Doe claims; Wooster followed its procedures, had discretion to extend time limits, and Title IX guidance does not control contract terms | Dismissed: Doe failed to plead a plausible breach of the Handbook or related implied‑duty claim |
| Whether promissory estoppel or negligence claims survive given an express contract | Handbook promises induced reliance; mishandling supports estoppel and negligence | An express contract governs the relationship, barring promissory estoppel; duties alleged arise from the contract, not tort law | Dismissed: estoppel and negligence are subsumed by (and precluded by) the contract claim |
| Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) was plausibly alleged | Wooster’s conduct in disciplining Doe was outrageous and intended to cause severe emotional harm | Actions arose from responding to a student rape complaint and do not meet the extreme‑and‑outrageous standard; conduct is tied to contractual process | Dismissed: IIED fails both because it is derivative of contract claims and because conduct is not sufficiently extreme |
| Whether leave to amend to add a Title IX claim should be granted | Doe sought to add Title IX claim alleging gender bias motivated Wooster to favor female complainants and pressured by Dear Colleague Letter; relied on campus criticism and media articles | Alleged facts do not plausibly show gender‑based discrimination against males; campus criticism shows pro‑victim (gender‑neutral) bias and federal guidance does not imply sex discrimination | Denied as futile: proposed Title IX allegations do not plausibly show sex‑based motivation |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (articulates when campus criticism and public pressure can support an inference of gender bias under Title IX)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (courts should not second‑guess school disciplinary decisions; framework for Title IX analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly show liability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Flaim v. Medical College of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2005) (universities need not permit attorney representation at disciplinary hearings for fairness)
- Jaksa v. Regents of Univ. of Mich., 597 F. Supp. 1245 (E.D. Mich. 1984) (university proceedings need not follow criminal rules of evidence)
- Al‑Dabagh v. Case W. Reserve Univ., 777 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2015) (student‑university relationship is contractual in nature)