Doe v. New York University, 438 F.Supp.3d 172

John Doe, an NYU Tisch student, was accused by Jane Roe of non‑consensual sex on March 17, 2017; Doe contends the encounter was consensual.
Roe filed a complaint Feb 18, 2018; NYU investigators conducted multiple investigations and held a first hearing (Aug 22, 2018) where Director Jolley found Doe responsible and suspended him.
An Appeal Panel vacated that outcome, ordered further investigation, and stayed sanctions; a de novo hearing before an external arbitrator (Jan 28, 2019) found Doe not responsible, and an appeal affirmed that result.
Doe sued NYU and individual administrators alleging Title IX selective enforcement and state tort and NYSHRL claims; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court dismissed the federal Title IX claim for failure to plead (1) treatment of similarly situated female students and (2) a minimal plausible inference of discriminatory intent, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and denied leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doe plausibly pleaded a Title IX selective‑enforcement claim	NYU's procedures and outcomes show sex bias; minimal plausible inference of bias suffices at pleading stage	Doe failed to identify any similarly situated female treated differently; must plead comparators and discriminatory intent	Dismissed: plaintiff did not allege similarly situated female comparators; claim fails
Whether investigative/hearing irregularities + public pressure support inference of discriminatory intent	Investigative defects and public criticism of NYU create a minimal plausible inference of sex bias	Alleged irregularities were minor or cured; public pressure allegations are insufficiently plausible or not shown to be known to decision‑makers	Dismissed: deficiencies do not rise to "clearly irregular" threshold and public pressure allegations are too thin
Whether plaintiff should get discovery to identify comparators	Discovery is needed because comparator information is confidential	Failure to plead is fatal; discovery is not warranted where the complaint is inadequate	Denied: a plaintiff who fails to state a claim is not entitled to discovery
Whether leave to amend should be granted	Doe sought leave to amend if complaint dismissed	Defendants noted prior opportunity to amend and prejudicial/futile amendment	Denied: Doe had prior chance and made a cursory request without proposed amendments

Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (describing Title IX erroneous‑outcome and selective‑enforcement frameworks and minimal pleading standard for discriminatory intent)
Menaker v. Hofstra Univ., 935 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2019) (articulating that combination of clearly irregular process plus public pressure can support inference of sex bias)
Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (framework for Title IX challenges to university disciplinary proceedings)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)