Doe v. Trustees of Boston College
892 F.3d 67
1st Cir.2018Background
- In Oct. 2012 a Boston College student (John Doe) was accused by a female student (A.B.) of sexual assault at an off‑campus school event; State police arrested Doe, later the criminal charge was dismissed in 2014.
- BC placed Doe on summary suspension and proceeded under its Student Guide and Conduct Board Procedure; an Administrative Hearing Board heard two days of testimony and found Doe responsible for the lesser offense of indecent assault and battery, imposing sanctions including suspension.
- Doe appealed; BC officials (including the Dean of Students and Executive VP) denied the appeal. Doe’s parents later requested an independent review in 2014; VP Barbara Jones reviewed and upheld the process and outcome.
- The Does sued (breach of contract for 2012 proceedings, breach of contract for 2014 review, promissory estoppel, basic‑fairness/common‑law duty, Title IX erroneous‑outcome and deliberate‑indifference claims, negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment).
- District court granted summary judgment to BC and individual defendants on all counts; First Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded as to certain claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — 2012 disciplinary proceedings | BC violated Student Guide procedures and reasonable‑expectation protections (multiple failures: inadequate investigation, biased chair, interference with deliberations, special treatment of alternative suspect) | BC followed its written procedures; Board acted as investigatory body, proper training was provided, and timing/refusal to wait for forensic results was permissible | Vacated district court's summary judgment and remanded — genuine issues of material fact exist (notably whether administrators interfered with Board deliberations and gave special treatment to alternative suspect) |
| Basic fairness / common‑law duty | Breaches of contract also violated BC’s independent duty to conduct hearings with basic fairness | Basic‑fairness claim depends on contract compliance; if procedures were followed no separate tort duty | Vacated and remanded along with breach‑of‑contract for 2012 (basic‑fairness claim survives summary judgment issues) |
| Breach of contract — 2014 review | Written communications from BC president created an enforceable promise to conduct an independent review; consideration existed because Does forebore litigation | No meeting‑of‑minds or consideration; communications were not a contractual offer to induce forbearance | Affirmed district court — no enforceable contract (lack of consideration and intent to be bound) |
| Title IX — erroneous outcome (gender bias) | Procedural irregularities, systemic bias, and external pressure (Dear Colleague Letter) cast doubt on outcome and show gender bias as motivating factor | Record lacks direct or circumstantial evidence connecting outcome to gender bias; policies are gender neutral; statistics and Dear Colleague do not establish bias | Affirmed district court — plaintiffs failed to show gender bias motivated the outcome (Yusuf standard unmet) |
| Title IX — deliberate indifference | BC officials knew of discrimination and failed to remedy it (both 2012 proceeding and 2014 review) | No underlying sex discrimination shown; therefore no deliberate indifference | Affirmed district court — deliberate‑indifference claim fails because no underlying discriminatory acts proven |
| Negligence / negligent infliction of emotional distress | BC assumed duty to exercise care in disciplinary process; negligent conduct harmed Doe | Duty arises from contract; no separate tort duty; remedies, if any, lie in contract | Affirmed district court — no independent tort duty outside contractual framework; negligence and NIED dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 840 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2016) (reasonableness‑expectations standard for interpreting university disciplinary promises)
- Cloud v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 720 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1983) (courts review disciplinary procedures to ensure they comport with reasonable expectations and basic fairness)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (setting framework for Title IX erroneous‑outcome claims: cast doubt on accuracy of outcome and show gender bias as motivating factor)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1998) (requirements for private Title IX actions against educational institutions)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (outside communication to juror presumed prejudicial)
- Uno Restaurants, Inc. v. Boston Kenmore Realty Corp., 805 N.E.2d 957 (Mass. 2004) (Massachusetts implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing)