Doe v. George Wash. Univ.
305 F. Supp. 3d 126
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Student (Mr. Doe) was suspended after a university disciplinary process and seeks a preliminary injunction to compel the university (GW) to confer his diploma so he can enroll in graduate school without delay.
- Mr. Doe does not seek to attend commencement; he wants only the diploma.
- He claims the university process was unfair and that the suspension will cause irreparable harm by delaying graduate enrollment.
- GW counters that conferring the diploma would misrepresent that Mr. Doe satisfied graduation requirements and would interfere with its disciplinary and academic autonomy; GW also receives federal funds and must comply with DOE directives.
- The court held an evidentiary/argument hearing and also considered subpoenaed cellphone records of a witness (E.E.) that Mr. Doe argues undermine the panel’s factual findings.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction but admitted the subpoenaed phone records into evidence and ordered expedited discovery and briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable injury / preliminary injunction standard | Delay to grad school is irreparable; diploma costs GW nothing | Delay is not inherently irreparable; GW has institutional interests and regulatory obligations | Denied: plaintiff failed to show likely irreparable injury under Winter standard |
| Balance of harms | Student’s lost educational opportunity and diploma outweigh GW’s interests | GW’s institutional credibility and autonomy would be harmed by a court-ordered diploma | Balance favors plaintiff, but not enough to grant injunction given other factors |
| Public interest | Fair treatment of students in disciplinary processes serves public interest | Public interest supports university autonomy to investigate and discipline | Public interest factors are evenly balanced and do not support injunction |
| Admissibility of E.E.’s phone records | Records show no calls and therefore undermine E.E.’s panel testimony; relevant to actual innocence | Records were not before the panel and thus irrelevant to the procedural-fairness review | Admitted: records are relevant to Doe’s claim of actual innocence and appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief must show likelihood of irreparable injury)
- Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (erroneous-outcome theory requires showing actual innocence to prevail on Title IX challenge)
- Alden v. Georgetown Univ., 734 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1999) (diploma as institutional certification; courts defer on academic judgments but not misconduct findings)