Doe v. Lynn University, Inc.
235 F. Supp. 3d 1336
S.D. Fla.2017Background
- John Doe, a 17-year-old male Lynn University student, was accused of sexual assault after a September 18, 2015 encounter; Boca Raton police investigated and found no evidence of sexual battery and did not file criminal charges.
- Lynn charged Doe with "Non-Consensual Sexual Intercourse" under its Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Policy; a December 11, 2015 disciplinary hearing (and subsequent appeal) resulted in a finding of responsibility.
- The hearing is alleged to have had multiple procedural irregularities (complainant’s lawyer acted beyond a “silent observer,” plaintiff’s questions not asked, curtailed closing statement, failure to consider police reports).
- Plaintiff filed suit under Title IX (erroneous outcome theory) and state claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; an earlier complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failing to plead a plausible gender-bias causal link.
- The Amended Complaint added university-specific allegations (local news reporting of prior incidents and parental/public pressure) and national-context allegations (DOE "Dear Colleague" guidance) to show pressure on the university to prosecute male students accused by females.
- The Court held the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged both (1) procedural flaws casting doubt on the accuracy of the proceeding and (2) a plausible causal connection between those flaws and gender bias; it denied the Motion to Dismiss and allowed the state-law claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX (erroneous outcome — causal link to gender bias) | Doe alleges the proceeding was inaccurate and that university- and nation-wide pressure to punish male-perpetrators, plus local criticism and administrators' awareness, show gender-motivated discipline | Insufficient to plead gender-based motive; procedural errors alone don't establish sex bias; national guidance alone is conclusory | Denied dismissal: Amended Complaint plausibly alleges both doubt about the outcome and a causal connection to gender bias when university-specific criticism + national pressure are considered together |
| Breach of Contract (deviation from policy) | Lynn violated Section 8.11.1.5(a) by allowing complainant’s lawyer to actively participate rather than be a “silent observer” | The policy permits an advisor who may accompany but not actively participate; plaintiff did not show active participation or that deviations were arbitrary/bad faith | Denied dismissal: allegations that the advisor answered for complainant and that deviations were motivated by gender bias suffice at pleading stage |
| Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing | The same alleged intentional, gender-motivated deviations from policy constitute a conscious, deliberate act frustrating contractual expectations | Plaintiff failed to allege conscious deliberate misconduct beyond negligence or bad judgment | Denied dismissal: pleaded facts (policy disregarded as part of a proceeding tilted by gender bias) meet the requisite plausibility threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for federal complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; legal conclusions not assumed true)
- Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir.) (framework for Title IX erroneous outcome and selective enforcement claims)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.) (university-specific criticism + administrative awareness can support causal inference of gender bias)
- Doe v. Cummins, [citation="662 F. App'x 437"] (6th Cir.) (national guidance alone insufficient; need additional facts linking policy pressure to gender bias)