942 F.3d 527
1st Cir.2019Background
- Boston College's Student Sexual Misconduct Policy (2018–19) defines sexual assault (nonconsensual penetration) and describes an investigative process (interviews, evidence review, advisor/support persons) but does not provide for live cross‑examination.
- Jane Roe complained that John Doe sexually assaulted her on Nov. 4, 2018; investigators interviewed both parties multiple times, produced a detailed report using a preponderance standard, and found Doe responsible.
- BC imposed a one‑year suspension; Doe appealed internally and the appeal was denied.
- Doe sued in federal court alleging Massachusetts contract claims (breach of an implied duty of "basic fairness") and sought a preliminary injunction to stay the suspension; the district court granted the injunction, reasoning that "quasi‑cross‑examination in real time" was required.
- The First Circuit reversed, holding Massachusetts law does not currently require the real‑time quasi‑cross‑examination the district court imposed and that federal due‑process precedent for public universities (Haidak) does not govern private institutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BC's Policy (and the implied contract) required some form of real‑time "quasi‑cross‑examination" as part of Massachusetts "basic fairness" | Doe: Basic fairness requires a procedure allowing contemporaneous questioning/observation (quasi‑cross‑examination) to test credibility | BC: Policy and Massachusetts law do not require live questioning; the Policy provided adequate investigative protections | Court: Rejected Doe; Massachusetts precedent does not mandate quasi‑cross‑examination; district court erred |
| Whether Doe had a reasonable expectation under the Policy to receive real‑time questioning | Doe: Contractual expectations include fair process that encompasses live questioning | BC: Policy expressly details its process and contains no live quasi‑cross‑examination guarantee | Court: Rejected Doe; Policy’s plain terms foreclose such an expectation |
| Whether federal due‑process decisions (e.g., Haidak re: public universities) control or expand Massachusetts "basic fairness" for private colleges | Doe: Relies on Haidak to justify imposing similar protections on private schools | BC: Haidak applies to public universities under the Constitution, not private institutions; state law governs | Court: Haidak does not govern private‑college contract claims; federal courts may not extend state law beyond established boundaries |
| Whether the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction based on likelihood of success on the merits | Doe: Showed probability of success on basic fairness claim | BC: District court misapplied state law and overstepped by creating new requirements | Court: District court abused its discretion; injunction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Haidak v. Univ. of Mass.-Amherst, 933 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2019) (federal due‑process requirements for public university disciplinary proceedings)
- Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 735 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. 2000) (private university procedures upheld as meeting basic fairness)
- Coveney v. President & Trs. of Coll. of Holy Cross, 445 N.E.2d 136 (Mass. 1983) (private college not constitutionally required to provide a hearing prior to discipline)
- Driscoll v. Bd. of Trs. of Milton Acad., 873 N.E.2d 1177 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (upholding discipline without contemporaneous questioning as meeting basic fairness)
- Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018) (analyzing campus disciplinary process and express promises of fairness)
- Cloud v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 720 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1983) (reasonable expectations and implied contractual duties in university discipline)