311 F. Supp. 3d 881
S.D. Ohio2018Background
- John Doe, a fourth-year MD/MBA student at Ohio State, was expelled after a disciplinary board found him responsible for sexual misconduct based on Jane Roe's allegation that she was too intoxicated to consent.
- Jane Roe had twice failed first-year courses and, at an Academic and Behavioral Review Committee (ABRC) hearing, attributed poor performance to the alleged assault; the ABRC granted her re-enrollment before she formally met with the student-conduct investigator.
- Roe reported the alleged assault to OSU officials (April 2015) after the ABRC meeting; Doe contends the timing and the academic accommodation gave Roe motive to fabricate or misstate facts and that he was prevented from effectively impeaching her credibility at the disciplinary hearing.
- At Doe's disciplinary hearing, credibility between Roe and Doe was dispositive; Doe was not allowed to present a retained expert on alcohol intoxication, and the hearing coordinator disallowed the expert's testimony and report.
- Doe sued under § 1983 alleging denial of procedural due process (ineffective cross-examination and exclusion of expert testimony); Defendants asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment on the qualified-immunity issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of impeachment evidence about Roe's motive (timing of report/benefit) violated Doe's due process right to effective cross-examination | Doe: OSU and its agents prevented him from presenting evidence that Roe received an academic benefit and thus had motive to fabricate, denying meaningful cross-examination | Defs.: Board relied on non-party witness testimony; Doe had opportunity to question Roe and the panel understood Doe's theory—no denial of due process | Court: Genuine dispute of material fact as to what Roe and advisor Spiert knew; summary judgment denied as to Spiert (trial issue), granted for other individual defendants (Page, Brennan, Adams-Gaston) on qualified immunity grounds |
| Whether individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for alleged due process violations during the disciplinary hearing | Doe: Officials who knew or should have known Roe's timing/benefit concealed impeachment evidence and are not shielded | Defs.: Supervisors lacked specific knowledge; hearing coordinator did not know timeline; qualified immunity protects them | Court: Qualified immunity denied for Spiert (fact question on knowledge); granted for Page, Brennan, Adams-Gaston as no material factual dispute on their knowledge |
| Whether exclusion of Doe's retained expert on intoxication implicated due process and is clearly established | Doe: Expert testimony was critical to assessing intoxication and consent and its exclusion violated due process | Defs.: No clearly established right to expert testimony at student disciplinary hearings; Mathews factors favor denying such a right | Court: Reconsidered prior dismissal, vacated earlier ruling; reinstated claim and allowed discovery on the expert-witness due process issue (Mathews analysis to follow) |
| Whether supervisors' knowledge can be imputed to justify denying qualified immunity | Doe: Supervisory roles imply familiarity sufficient to create fact issues about knowledge | Defs.: Supervisory status does not establish actual knowledge of the specific facts at issue | Court: Rejected imputation here—no basis to infer specific knowledge for Brennan and Adams-Gaston; they receive qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (balance of compensating injuries v. protecting government function for qualified immunity)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment and genuine dispute of material fact)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified-immunity two-step and district-court discretion on sequencing)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three-factor due process balancing test)
- Flaim v. Medical College of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (Sixth Circuit on due process in higher-education disciplinary proceedings)
- United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464 (qualified-immunity standards in Sixth Circuit)
- Pouillon v. City of Owosso, 206 F.3d 711 (procedural posture permitting fact questions to go to jury before immunity legal ruling)
- Doe v. Brandeis Univ., 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (discussion of fairness and opportunity to defend in campus sexual-assault adjudications)