Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University
149 F. Supp. 3d 602
E.D. Va.2016Background
- Plaintiff, a former George Mason University (GMU) student, was expelled in Dec. 2014 after administrative proceedings that ultimately found him responsible for sexual misconduct and threatening communication related to his relationship with a woman (Roe) involving BDSM practices.
- Initial adjudication by a three-member Sexual Misconduct Board after a 10-hour hearing resulted in a not-responsible finding as to the incident of Oct. 27, 2013; Roe then filed an appeal.
- Ericson (Assistant Dean) permitted and personally took Roe’s appeal, conducted de novo review (after extensive ex parte contacts and having decided the case before meeting plaintiff), reversed the panel, and expelled plaintiff; Blank-Godlove (Dean) affirmed on further appeal after limited, off-the-record review.
- Plaintiff sued GMU and officials in official capacities alleging procedural due process and First Amendment violations; discovery revealed that the appeal review was de novo and that the expulsion rested on incidents beyond Oct. 27, 2013, of which plaintiff had not been given clear notice.
- The court found (undisputed facts) that plaintiff’s expulsion implicated a protected liberty interest (reputation and altered legal status) and that multiple procedural shortcomings occurred: inadequate notice of the full scope of allegations, ex parte off-the-record contacts, de novo appellate review without meaningful opportunity to be heard, deviations from internal rules, and lack of reasoned decision explaining reversal.
- Because of these process failures the court granted plaintiff summary judgment on the procedural due process claim, vacated the administrative decisions, ordered reinstatement pending further briefing on remedy, and alternatively held GMU’s speech rule (Code 2013.9.B) overbroad as applied to plaintiff’s March 2014 suicide-threat text.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice for misconduct charges | Doe: notice limited to Oct. 27, 2013; not on notice that other incidents were charged | GMU: Roe’s narrative and some language ("and continuing") put Doe on notice of broader scope | Court: Notice inadequate; plaintiff entitled to notice of full factual scope to mount meaningful defense |
| Fairness of appeal process / ex parte contacts & bias | Doe: Ericson and Blank‑Godlove held off‑the‑record ex parte meetings, Ericson prejudged the case, and appellate review was de novo without meaningful hearing | GMU: administrators entitled to investigate and decide; presumption of official impartiality | Court: Appeal process was constitutionally deficient—ex parte off‑the‑record contacts and prejudgment made opportunity to be heard meaningless |
| Prejudice / Effect of alleged admissions | Doe: he denied the requisite mental state ("deliberate") and context (BDSM safe‑word) matters; procedural errors caused prejudice | GMU: Doe effectively admitted conduct justifying discipline; thus no prejudice from procedural defects | Court: Plaintiff did not unequivocally admit the culpable mens rea; procedural defects could have affected outcome and caused prejudice |
| Free speech re: March 2014 text threatening suicide | Doe: text was protected speech (not a true threat or fighting words); Code 2013.9.B is overbroad as written and applied | GMU: text fit Code 2013.9.B (communication likely to cause distress) and Tinker allows regulation to protect campus safety | Court: As applied, punishment for the private suicide‑threat text was improper; Code 2013.9.B is susceptible to overbroad application and must be read to reach only true threats/fighting words; Doe’s text was protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (recognition that reputation, name, honor implicate liberty interests)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Mathews balancing test for procedural due process)
- Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (minimum due process requirements in university disciplinary hearings)
- Henson v. Honor Comm. of Univ. of Va., 719 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. endorsement of Dixon principles)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (student speech can be regulated only when it materially disrupts school discipline)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (risk of unfairness; due process impartiality concerns)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (true threats doctrine limits First Amendment protection)
- United States v. White, 670 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. formulation of true‑threat standard)
- IOTA XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason Univ., 993 F.2d 386 (universities as "bazaars of ideas" and limits on silencing speech)
- McCauley v. Univ. of the V.I., 618 F.3d 232 (striking overly broad university speech code that uses subjective standards like "distress")