321 F. Supp. 3d 118
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- In 2015 John Doe and Jane Roe had a sexual encounter; Roe later alleged she was too intoxicated to consent.
- In December 2017 a GW hearing panel (two students and one administrator) found Doe responsible and suspended him for one year, delaying his degree conferral.
- Doe timely appealed under GW's Code of Student Conduct, submitting new evidence: a toxicologist's report, an affidavit from Q.W., and later subpoenaed phone records casting doubt on a witness's testimony.
- Robert Snyder, GW's Executive Director of Planning & Outreach, screened appeals and rejected Doe's appeal as not "new" or not altering the finding, effectively deciding merit rather than merely viability.
- Doe sued for breach of contract (the Code construed as contract terms) and moved for partial summary judgment seeking an appellate-panel review of his appeal; the Court found GW breached the Code by misapplying Article 34 and ordered GW to convene an appellate panel to hear the appeal on the full record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Code creates enforceable contractual obligations | Doe: The Code's appeal procedures are contractual terms binding GW | GW: The Code can be modified unilaterally and is not a binding contract term here | Court: The Code's appeal provisions are contract terms and enforceable |
| Proper role of the initial appeal reviewer (Snyder) under Article 34 | Doe: Snyder must assess "viability" (reasonable chance to succeed) not decide merits | GW: Snyder may determine viability as defined by Article 33 and thus deny appeals on merit | Court: Snyder exceeded Article 34's gatekeeper role by effectively resolving merits; he must only screen for viability |
| Whether Doe's submitted evidence was "new" and could alter findings | Doe: Toxicology report, Q.W. affidavit, and phone records were new and could significantly alter credibility/findings | GW: Evidence was available earlier or not material; Snyder already considered it | Court: Toxicology report and Q.W. affidavit were new and could affect findings; Snyder erred in discounting them and weighing credibility |
| Appropriate remedy for GW's breach | Doe: Order appellate-panel review on the full record (including new evidence) | GW: Remand to Snyder suffices; full panel order is an excessive equitable windfall | Court: Remand to Snyder would be ineffectual; orders GW to convene appellate panel and decide within 28 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Chenari v. George Washington Univ., 847 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (university-student handbook provisions can create contractual rights)
- Alden v. Georgetown Univ., 734 A.2d 1103 (D.C. 1999) (recognizing contractual relationship between university and students)
- Pride v. Howard Univ., 384 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1978) (disciplinary code provisions distributed to students may be contract terms)
- Basch v. George Washington Univ., 370 A.2d 1364 (D.C. 1977) (contract interpretation principles for university communications)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard explained)
- New England Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 571 F.2d 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (avoidance of contractual redundancy in interpretation)
- Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (academic disciplinary proceedings are not equivalent to courtroom due process)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (public-school disciplinary process requires rudimentary procedural safeguards)
- Nash v. Auburn Univ., 812 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1987) (limits on due-process equivalence between academic discipline and courtroom proceedings)