276 F. Supp. 3d 300
M.D. Penn.2017Background
- Jane Roe accused John Doe of attempted kissing and nonconsensual digital penetration on Sept 7, 2016; Penn State initiated a Title IX investigation and issued a no-contact directive.
- Investigator Katharina Matic conducted interviews, produced an investigatory report, and redacted portions of Doe’s responses; Roe referenced a medical exam and physical evidence that were not produced to the investigative file.
- Case manager Karen Feldbaum charged Doe with nonconsensual penetration and recommended suspension; Doe contested and a Title IX Decision Panel held a hearing on June 6, 2017 and found Doe responsible, imposing suspension and other sanctions.
- Doe appealed and the appeal was denied; he sued Penn State and officials asserting 14th Amendment procedural due process and Title IX claims and sought a preliminary injunction to permit enrollment in Fall 2017 and participation in the joint premed program.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the preliminary injunction, finding Doe likely to prevail on his due process claim based on significant procedural deviations (rejection of submitted cross-examination questions, late delivery of the investigative packet, and redactions by the investigator) and that irreparable harm would result from suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penn State provided constitutionally adequate process in the disciplinary proceeding | Penn State deviated from its Code of Conduct: rejected most submitted questions (including about an undisclosed medical exam), provided the investigative packet to the panel one day before the hearing, and redacted Doe’s response—denying meaningful opportunity to confront and respond | Penn State argued its procedures (questions screened for relevance; panel may exclude new or irrelevant evidence) were followed and no deprivation occurred | Court held Doe showed likelihood of success on due process claim because the procedural deviations were significant and unfair and could have affected credibility determinations |
| Whether the format for cross‑examination satisfied due process | Doe argued rejected questions and limits on questioning denied meaningful cross‑examination of complainant and relevant witnesses | Penn State maintained the question‑submission format (screened by panel) is permissible and was applied | Court found the panel’s rejection of questions (especially about the medical exam) was a significant deviation from procedure and potentially prejudicial, supporting likelihood of success |
| Whether Doe would suffer irreparable harm absent injunction | Suspension (and recommended exclusion from joint program while complainant remains enrolled) would cause a multi‑year delay in an accelerated medical track and lifelong stigma affecting medical school prospects | Penn State said any suspension would be limited and harms to the institution and complainant outweigh Doe’s asserted harms | Court held Doe would suffer immediate, irreparable harm (loss/delay in medical training, lifelong explaining of gap), tipping balance in favor of injunction |
| Balance of harms & public interest in granting preliminary relief | Protecting Doe’s constitutional rights and preventing irreparable career harm outweighs temporary administrative inconvenience; status quo (separation of students) can be maintained | Penn State emphasized institutional authority, student safety, and risk of opening floodgates for injunctions attacking disciplinary outcomes | Court found the balance of harms and public interest favored relief to vindicate due process while maintaining separation measures for safety |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (students facing suspension are entitled to notice and some kind of hearing)
- Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (framework for what process is due: private interest, risk of erroneous deprivation, government interest)
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (Third Circuit clarifying preliminary injunction gateway factors and burden)
- Furey v. Temple Univ., 730 F. Supp. 2d 390 (importance of cross‑examination and consequences of significant departures from disciplinary procedures)
- Winnick v. Manning, 460 F.2d 545 (cross‑examination relevance in credibility determinations)
- Doe v. University of Cincinnati, 223 F. Supp. 3d 704 (university disciplinary procedures and due process analysis in sexual‑misconduct context)