Doe v. Salisbury University, 123 F. Supp. 3d 748

Background

Plaintiffs John Doe and Richard Roe, SU students, were accused by Jane Doe #1 of sexual assault arising from a 10/5/2013 party; Jane Doe #1 filed a police report and underwent a medical exam that showed no evidence of sexual assault.
Salisbury University (SU) investigated; administrators Randall-Lee and Hill prepared an investigative report concluding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that non-consensual sexual activity likely occurred and submitted findings to SU’s Community Board.
The Community Board found Plaintiffs responsible on 2/6/2014; Plaintiffs appealed and SU’s Associate VP denied the appeals and modified sanctions to require reflection papers.
Plaintiffs sued asserting defamation, IIED, negligence, civil conspiracy, and multiple Title IX theories (sexual harassment, erroneous outcome, deliberate indifference, retaliation), and sought damages and injunctive relief; the case was removed to federal court and Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint.
On multiple motions to dismiss, the court dismissed many claims for failure to plead plausibly under Twombly/Iqbal, granted dismissal of claims against Jane Doe #1 and the two other Jane Doe defendants (the latter voluntarily by Plaintiffs), but allowed negligence (against SU in official capacity) and an erroneous-outcome Title IX claim to proceed and preserved the request for injunctive relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defamation by Jane Doe #1	Jane Doe #1 published false allegations to third parties accusing Plaintiffs of sexual assault	Statements were either not specifically pleaded; if made, they are conditionally privileged	Dismissed: Plaintiffs failed to plead specific defamatory statements; privilege would likely apply
IIED against Jane Doe #1 and SU	False accusations caused severe emotional distress warranting IIED recovery	Plaintiffs have not pleaded severe, disabling emotional distress as required	Dismissed for failure to plausibly allege severe emotional distress
Negligence against SU/administrators	SU breached its own policies in investigating/disciplining Plaintiffs, creating a duty and proximate harm	No legally cognizable duty; MTCA immunity for individual administrators	Denied as to SU (negligence claim may proceed); granted as to Randall-Lee and Hill in their personal capacities (MTCA immunity)
Defamation/civil conspiracy against SU	SU employees presented false information to the Board with malice	SU communications to Board are protected by the common-interest (qualified) privilege; plaintiffs fail to plead malice	Defamation and conspiracy claims dismissed for failure to plead malice/abuse of privilege
Title IX – Hostile environment sexual harassment	SU’s procedures, training, and policy application constituted sex-based harassment	Allegations do not identify sex‑specific humiliating conduct sufficient for hostile-environment claim	Dismissed: harassment claim fails to state a plausible hostile-environment claim
Title IX – Erroneous outcome (gender bias)	Procedural defects plus circumstantial evidence and documents suggest gender bias produced an erroneous finding	Awareness/training materials and campus programs are gender‑neutral; plaintiffs’ bias allegations are conclusory	Survives: Plaintiffs pleaded procedure defects and alleged particularized facts (some on information and belief) sufficient to state an erroneous-outcome claim for discovery
Title IX – Deliberate indifference (as separate count)	SU acted with deliberate indifference in handling complaints	Deliberate indifference is a theory, not a standalone cause of action	Dismissed: deliberate indifference improperly pled as separate count
Title IX – Retaliation	Requiring reflection papers after appeal was retaliatory	Reflection paper is a minor sanction, not materially adverse; appeal even reduced sanctions for one plaintiff	Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to allege a materially adverse action under Title IX retaliation framework
Injunctive relief (expungement)	Plaintiffs seek expungement of disciplinary records if findings were erroneous	Injunction would interfere with institutional responsibilities and public interest in addressing sexual misconduct	Not resolved on merits: prayer for injunctive relief recast as remedy for surviving claims and allowed to survive at pleading stage

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and discharge of speculative claims)
Offen v. Brenner, 402 Md. 191 (2007) (elements of defamation under Maryland law)
Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 424 Md. 294 (2012) (conditional/qualified privilege and malice standard in Maryland defamation law)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (deliberate indifference as standard for institutional liability under Title IX)
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX private right of action for retaliation)
Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (erroneous outcome framework for Title IX gender bias claims)
Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden, 330 Md. 632 (1993) (IIED is narrowly applied; severe distress requirement)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunction)