393 F.Supp.3d 683
W.D. Mich.2019Background
- John Doe (student) was investigated and expelled by Northern Michigan University (NMU) for sexual misconduct based on Jane Roe’s allegation she was too intoxicated to consent to oral and vaginal sex on Oct. 30, 2016.
- Doe initially affirmed two of the allegations when interviewed by an administrator, later gave a statement contradicting those affirmations, and claims he believed affirming would reduce punishment.
- NMU’s investigation included interviews of Roe and Doe, a draft report review, no live hearing or opportunity for Doe to question Roe before the decision-making Sexual Misconduct Review Board (SMRB); Doe had an adviser-right provision in policy but alleges he was not informed of it.
- The SMRB found Doe responsible for charges he had affirmed and expelled him; an appeal was denied. Doe filed suit asserting procedural due process violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Title IX gender-bias, breach of contract/promissory estoppel, and negligence (including gross negligence).
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing adequate process was provided, no Title IX gender bias, contractual compliance, and governmental/tort immunity; the court granted dismissal in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process (official capacity) | Doe claims deprivation of property/liberty (expulsion, reputational harm) without adequate process: no live hearing, no cross-examination, no notice of right to counsel, preponderance standard used | NMU says Doe received notice, could review evidence and submit statement, and his affirmations reduced need for live hearing/cross-examination | Court: Official-capacity due process claims may proceed; plausible that live hearing/cross-examination were required under facts presented |
| Procedural due process (individual capacity / qualified immunity) | Doe seeks to hold investigators and Title IX coordinator individually liable | Defendants claim qualified immunity because the right to a live hearing/cross-examination after an affirmation was not clearly established | Court: Individual-capacity claims dismissed — Defendants entitled to qualified immunity |
| Title IX (erroneous outcome) | Doe alleges gender bias caused erroneous outcome and that procedures reflected bias against men | NMU argues Doe pleads only generalized bias (victims often female), not particularized causal link between outcome and gender | Court: Title IX claim dismissed for failure to allege particularized causal connection to gender bias |
| Breach of contract / promissory estoppel | Doe alleges NMU failed to follow its Sexual Misconduct Policy (not using preponderance, not advising right to counsel, no rationale) | NMU contends it applied preponderance, provided rationale (based on affirmations), and policy did not require a live hearing; adviser-right existed but Doe was not informed | Court: Contract claim survives only as to failure to inform Doe of right to have an adviser (including attorney); other contract claims dismissed |
| Negligence / gross negligence | Doe alleges negligent investigation and process; gross negligence for extreme departures | NMU and employees invoke Michigan Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) immunity; gross negligence exception not plausibly pleaded | Court: Negligence and negligence-per-se claims dismissed under GTLA; gross negligence claim dismissed for failure to plead facts showing recklessness |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard at motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and inference framework)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (students entitled to some notice and hearing; more process for harsher sanctions)
- Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir.) (notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to present view before unbiased decisionmaker; cross-examination when credibility choice required)
- Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir.) (Title IX erroneous-outcome standard and cross-examination required when factfinder must choose between competing narratives)
- Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (6th Cir.) (scope of judicial review of university disciplinary proceedings; counsel not automatically required)
- Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky, 860 F.3d 365 (6th Cir.) (preponderance standard permissible in campus sexual-assault proceedings)