Doe v. Kansas State University, 499 P.3d 1136

Background

John Doe attended Kansas State University (KSU) 2010–2012; in 2018 a different university requested his records and whether any official outcomes existed.
KSU administrator Heather Reed emailed the other university reporting housing sanctions, two stalking complaints and sanctions, and Code of Conduct complaints culminating in expulsion; Doe also alleged Reed sent an altered transcript stamped “ADMINISTRATIVE DISMISSAL.”
Doe sued KSU and Reed for defamation, FERPA violations, and related negligence claims; defendants moved to dismiss and separately moved to strike under Kansas’ Public Speech Protection Act (K.S.A. 60-5320, the anti‑SLAPP statute).
The district court found KSU and Reed made a prima facie showing that Reed’s email was protected speech, association, and petitioning activity under the Act, shifted the burden to Doe, and struck/dismissed his petition for failing to present substantial competent evidence showing a likelihood of prevailing.
On appeal Doe argued FERPA barred disclosure, the statements were false/defamatory, and anti‑SLAPP did not apply; the appellate court rejected these arguments and affirmed dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction / use of pseudonym	Doe may proceed anonymously without prior court permission; notice of appeal valid	Defendants argued Doe’s anonymous filing and notice of appeal deprived courts of jurisdiction	Court rejected defendants’ jurisdiction challenge: district court’s strike mooted anonymity question and the notice of appeal was sufficient by inference
Whether FERPA prevents anti‑SLAPP protection	FERPA prohibits disclosure of the student information, so defendants’ communication is unprotected	FERPA creates no private right and disclosure fell within 34 C.F.R. §99.31(a)(2)/§99.34 exceptions; FERPA does not bar application of the Act	Court held FERPA does not bar anti‑SLAPP protection; defendants satisfied FERPA exception and FERPA creates no private cause of action to defeat the motion
Anti‑SLAPP burden‑shifting and prima facie showing	Doe argued defendants had to prove truth of statements at step one; plaintiff’s pleadings should be accepted as true	Defendants need only show the claim relates to protected activity; merits and truth belong to step two; plaintiff must present substantial competent evidence to show likelihood of success	Court held defendants met step one (uncontested on appeal) and step‑one does not probe truth; Doe failed step two because he offered no substantial competent evidence of likelihood of prevailing
Defamation merits, damages, and privilege	Statements were false and defamatory; FERPA/altered transcript show falsity and injury	Doe offered only conclusory allegations; Reed’s communications were qualifiedly privileged; plaintiff failed to allege malice or quantify damages	Court found Doe’s allegations conclusory and insufficient under K.S.A. 60-5320(d); qualified privilege applies and Doe failed to show actual malice or demonstrable damages; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (FERPA does not create a private right of action)
Unwitting Victim v. C.S., 273 Kan. 937 (2002) (anonymous/pseudonymous suits require district court analysis of privacy interest)
Anderson v. Scheffler, 242 Kan. 857 (1988) (notice of appeal must name or reasonably infer the party taking the appeal)
Caranchini v. Peck, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (D. Kan. 2018) (application of Kansas anti‑SLAPP procedure in federal diversity context; analysis of pleadings and affidavits)
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino, 89 Cal. App. 4th 294 (2001) (distinguishing threshold SLAPP applicability from merits—merits belong in second step)
Laker v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 32 Cal. App. 5th 745 (2019) (general allegation of illegality does not defeat anti‑SLAPP motion)
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 293 Kan. 633 (2012) (liberal construction of notice/appeal rules and analysis of prejudice from imperfect notices)