Doe v. Ohio State University, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1048

Background

John Doe (former OSU student and RN) was accused by Jane Doe of sexual assault arising from encounters in 2012 and April 2014; Jane filed a complaint in November 2014.
OSU’s Office of Student Life investigated, charged Doe under the Code of Student Conduct, and held a University Conduct Board hearing on March 6, 2015.
The Board found Doe responsible and permanently dismissed him, noting a transcript entry and a ban from OSU property; Doe resigned from his nursing job shortly thereafter.
Doe sued OSU and individual administrators asserting Title IX claims (hostile environment, deliberate indifference, erroneous outcome), § 1983 claims (procedural and substantive due process, equal protection), defamation, and IIED; most claims were challenged on Rule 12(b)(6).
Court granted dismissal in part: it dismissed all claims except Doe’s Title IX “erroneous outcome” claim against OSU; motions to strike a declaration were denied and individual defendants were dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title IX — Hostile environment / sex discrimination in disciplinary process	OSU’s procedures and enforcement were gender-biased against men, depriving Doe of educational opportunities.	Doe was not a student at the time of adjudication; he cannot identify a similarly situated female comparator; allegations are conclusory.	Dismissed: Doe failed to plead a proper hostile-environment/sex-discrimination claim or identify a nearly identical opposite-sex comparator.
Title IX — Deliberate indifference	OSU officials acted with deliberate indifference to gender discrimination in investigation and adjudication.	No actual notice of sex-based discrimination to an official with authority; allegations are conclusory and amount to disagreement with outcome.	Dismissed: Doe failed to plead actual-notice and deliberate indifference under Title IX.
Title IX — Erroneous outcome (selective/biased discipline)	The hearing outcome was inaccurate and causally connected to gender bias (pattern of decisions, OCR/ATIXA pressure, OSU statements, procedural irregularities).	Allegations are generalized and lack tribunal statements or specific evidence of sex-motivated decisionmaking.	Survived: Court found Doe pleaded sufficient facts to cast doubt on accuracy and alleged enough circumstantial evidence of gender bias to proceed on an erroneous-outcome Title IX claim against OSU.
§ 1983 — Procedural & substantive due process; Equal Protection	Procedural defects, denial of evidence, biased investigation/hearing, transcript stigma; equal protection based on sex discrimination.	Doe lacked a protected property/liberty interest (not enrolled); even if interest existed, process provided met constitutional requirements; no similarly situated comparator for equal protection.	Dismissed: Doe failed to establish constitutionally protected interest or conscience-shocking conduct; procedural due process allegations did not show inadequate notice/hearing; equal protection lacked comparator.

Key Cases Cited

Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (framework for Title IX erroneous-outcome and selective-enforcement claims in disciplinary context)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for pleading plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (constraining conclusory allegations at pleading stage)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (deliberate-indifference standard for institutional Title IX liability)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (procedural due process notice and hearing requirements in school disciplinary settings)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (scope of judicial review for academic disciplinary decisions)
Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. view that due process is implicated in higher-education disciplinary decisions)
Doe v. Brandeis Univ., 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. 2016) (criticisms of campus sexual-misconduct procedures and the need for fairness in adjudication)