55 F.4th 302
1st Cir.2022Background
- John Doe, a Stonehill student, was expelled after investigators found he engaged in nonconsensual digital penetration of Jane Roe; prior encounters between them included consensual digital stimulation.
- After the incident Doe sent apologetic Snapchat messages to Roe; Roe later texted that the encounter "wasn't ok," and filed a complaint.
- Stonehill investigators produced a two-part report: Part 1 was shared with parties for review; Part 2 (provided later to administrators) included additional facts not disclosed in Part 1 (notably Roe's alleged comment to a witness and an assertion that she believed she was incapacitated).
- Doe alleges procedural defects: lack of advance notice of Roe's second interview, omission of a corroborating witness statement from the version he reviewed, inadequate probing of Roe's intoxication and changing account of prior sexual history, reliance on Doe's Snapchat messages without explaining rejection of his alternative explanation, and lack of independent administrative review.
- The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of Title IX, tort, defamation, and related claims, but reversed dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim and remanded for further proceedings on that claim and related equitable relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (reasonable expectations/basic fairness) | Stonehill breached its sexual-misconduct policy by (1) failing to allow Doe to review all facts before the final report, (2) not giving advance notice of witness interviews (esp. Roe's second interview), (3) conducting an incomplete/unfair investigation, and (4) failing to ensure administrators performed independent review. | Stonehill contends its process complied with the policy; omitted details were cumulative or harmless; policy did not guarantee advance notice of interviews; administrators reasonably relied on investigators. | Reversed dismissal as to contract: Doe plausibly alleged breaches (notably omission of the witness corroboration from the draft, lack of notice of Roe's second interview, deficient handling of Snapchat messages, and lack of independent review) that could have prejudiced his defense. |
| Title IX: selective enforcement | Stonehill disproportionately disciplines men and faced OCR/#MeToo pressure, indicating sex-based enforcement. | Statistical and temporal allegations are insufficient; neutral explanations exist; no facts show Stonehill punished men because of sex. | Affirmed dismissal: plaintiff failed to plausibly allege selective enforcement based on sex. |
| Title IX: erroneous outcome / sex bias | Procedural flaws and external pressure cast articulable doubt on the outcome and show gender bias as a motivating factor. | Procedural errors do not necessarily show sex bias; other explanations (inexperience, pro-complainant bias) are plausible; background OCR inquiry too remote and unspecific. | Affirmed dismissal: Doe pleaded articulable doubt but did not plausibly allege that sex bias motivated the outcome. |
| Defamation, negligence, related torts | Final report finding and administrators statements harmed reputation; investigators negligently investigated. | Investigators statement is a nonactionable opinion supported by disclosed facts; negligence claims are barred or duplicative of contract-based remedies and lack plausible factual support. | Affirmed dismissal: recommendation is protected opinion; negligence and emotional-distress claims fail (contract governs and tort pleadings inadequate). |
Key Cases Cited
- Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724 (1st Cir. 2016) (pleading stage: consider complaint and incorporated documents)
- Havlik v. Johnson & Wales Univ., 509 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (student-university relationship grounded in contract)
- Cloud v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 720 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1983) (Massachusetts law governs student contract claims)
- Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 735 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. 2000) (reasonable-expectations theory in student contract claims)
- Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018) (basic fairness and Title IX framework)
- Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (selective enforcement and erroneous-outcome theories)
- Haidak v. Univ. of Mass.-Amherst, 933 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2019) (selective enforcement and iterative-inquiry discussion)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (example of inferring sex bias from profoundly one-sided process)