Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University
132 F. Supp. 3d 712
E.D. Va.2015Background
- John Doe, a former George Mason University (GMU) student, was accused of sexual misconduct arising from a BDSM encounter and initially found "not responsible" by a three-member hearing panel.
- The complainant appealed; Assistant Dean Brent Ericson (who had notified Doe of charges) reviewed the record, reversed part of the panel’s findings, and imposed expulsion; Assistant Dean Juliet Blank-Godlove affirmed on further appeal.
- Doe sued GMU, President Angel Cabrera, Ericson, and Blank-Godlove in a ten‑count Second Amended Complaint alleging federal and state due process violations, First Amendment, Title IX, equal protection, and common‑law negligence claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6); court addressed jurisdiction, pleaded sufficiency, qualified immunity, and sovereign immunity issues.
- The court dismissed several claims with prejudice (substantive due process, Virginia due process, all negligence counts, Virginia constitutional claims) and dismissed Title IX and federal equal‑protection claims without prejudice; it permitted the procedural due process (liberty‑interest) and First Amendment claims to proceed against the university defendants but granted qualified immunity to Ericson and Blank‑Godlove in their individual capacities for those federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal jurisdiction (12(b)(1)) | Federal claims (First Amendment, Title IX, Equal Protection) and supplemental jurisdiction support federal jurisdiction | Lack of protected property interest defeats federal question jurisdiction for due process counts | Denied: federal question jurisdiction exists via Counts IV, VIII, IX; supplemental jurisdiction covers state claims |
| Procedural due process — property interest | Doe alleges property interest in continued enrollment at GMU | No independent Virginia source shown to create a property entitlement | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead a state‑law source; leave to amend granted |
| Procedural due process — liberty/stigma‑plus | Expulsion for sexual misconduct stigmatizes reputation and impairs future opportunities (stigma + loss of status) | No qualifying "plus" (property) alleged; stigma alone insufficient | Denied: Doe plausibly alleged a stigma‑plus liberty interest; Count I survives against GMU (but GMU not a proper §1983 defendant) |
| Qualified immunity (individual defendants) | Actions deprived Doe of clear constitutional rights requiring process | Right not "clearly established" in public‑university disciplinary context | Granted with prejudice for Ericson and Blank‑Godlove on Count I and Count IV (individual capacity) |
| Substantive due process | Applying sexual‑misconduct rules to BDSM relationship violated fundamental sexual‑liberty rights | No fundamental right implicated; conduct did not "shock the conscience" | Dismissed with prejudice: conduct not conscience‑shocking; Count II fails |
| First Amendment — text message threat | Text stating he would shoot himself is protected speech (not a true threat) | Message is a true threat or disrupts school discipline (Tinker) | Count IV survives against institutional defendants (insufficient record to dismiss); individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity (dismissed with prejudice) |
| Title IX — disparate impact and intentional discrimination | Procedures have disparate impact on males and outcome reflects gender bias | Title IX does not provide disparate‑impact remedy; allegations fail to plausibly show gender bias | Disparate‑impact claim dismissed with prejudice; intentional discrimination dismissed without prejudice (leave to amend) |
| State claims and negligence | State due process and state constitutional equal‑rights claims; negligence claims asserted | Virginia sovereign immunity bars tort claims; state constitutional provisions not self‑executing for these claims | Counts III, V–VII, X dismissed with prejudice; some federal/state claims dismissed without prejudice allowing amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (recognizing due process in public‑school suspensions and discussing reputation harms)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (stigma‑plus test for reputational liberty interest)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (limitations on disparate‑impact private causes of action)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (definition and scope of true threats)
- Sciolino v. City of Newport News, 480 F.3d 642 (Fourth Circuit on reputational harm/public announcement concept)