Doe v. Salisbury University, 107 F. Supp. 3d 481

Background

Plaintiff (a former Salisbury University student) was suspended in May 2014 after a 2013 investigation and filed Title IX complaints alleging gender discrimination; those complaints were rejected by the university president.
Plaintiff later submitted a readmission application and a required reflection paper but then withdrew and did not resubmit the readmission application.
On November 2014 SU informed Plaintiff that it had learned of an alleged 2012 sexual-assault allegation and opened a new investigation, requesting a written response.
Plaintiff filed suit (Dec. 2014) alleging: hostile-environment, deliberate indifference, and retaliation under Title IX; § 1983 due-process violations; breach of contract; promissory estoppel; and requests for declaratory and injunctive relief.
In his opposition brief Plaintiff abandoned many claims; the court analyzed the remaining claims and addressed defendants’ qualified-immunity defense and whether the complaint met Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff stated a Title IX hostile-environment sexual-harassment claim	SU’s disciplinary practices and alleged gender-biased application of policies constitute sexual-harassment creating a hostile environment	Complaint lacks allegations of sex-specific humiliation, ridicule, or sexualized conduct required for harassment	Dismissed — complaint fails to allege the sex-specific conduct needed for a harassment claim
Whether deliberate indifference may stand as a separate Title IX count	Plaintiff pleaded deliberate indifference by SU in investigating/disciplining him	Defendants argued improper pleading and failure to state a separate claim	Dismissed — deliberate indifference is a theory for imputing institutional liability, not a standalone count
Whether Plaintiff pleaded Title IX retaliation (investigation initiated in retaliation for prior complaints)	Filing prior Title IX complaints is protected activity; initiating the 2012 investigation shortly afterward was an adverse action and causally connected	Defendants argued insufficient causal nexus and other justifications	Survived — complaint plausibly pleads protected activity, adverse action, and causal inference; motion to dismiss denied as to retaliation
Whether § 1983 procedural-due-process claim survives against individual defendants	Plaintiff claims deprivation of reputation, transcript, ability to attend other public schools, and harm to future opportunities without constitutionally adequate process	Defendants asserted qualified immunity and that adequate process was provided (notice and opportunity to respond)	Dismissed — at pleading stage plaintiff failed to show deprivation without process; defendants entitled to qualified immunity
Whether SU may investigate/discipline a former student and whether retroactive policy application breaches contract	Plaintiff argued SU lacks authority over non-students and that applying 2014 policies retroactively breaches contract	Defendants argued schools retain implied authority over records/credentials and may investigate post-enrollment conduct; no facts showing different treatment under new policies	Dismissed — court held SU has implied authority to investigate/revise records for conduct while enrolled; no plausible breach or retroactivity claim alleged
Whether injunctive relief (permanent injunction against investigation/discipline) is barred as a standalone claim	Plaintiff sought injunctive relief to prevent investigation/discipline and reputational harm	Defendants argued injunctive relief was not an independent cause of action	Not dismissed — recast as remedy for surviving Title IX retaliation claim; prayer for injunctive relief survives motion to dismiss

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; legal conclusions not accepted as true)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60 (Title IX private right of action for sexual harassment)
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (Title IX private right of action for retaliation)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (deliberate indifference standard to impute institutional liability under Title IX)
Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686 (Fourth Circuit framework for Title IX harassment and institutional liability)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (due-process notice and hearing requirements for students)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity analysis)
Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (presumption against retroactivity)
Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (framework for gender-motivated discipline claims under Title IX)