270 F. Supp. 3d 799
E.D. Pa.2017Background
- John Doe (African‑American male) was accused by Jane Roe (white female) of sexual assault arising from a June 8, 2016 sexual encounter; University of Pennsylvania investigated, issued a Draft and Final Report finding nonconsensual intercourse, and recommended expulsion.
- Hearing Panel (3 faculty) conducted a de novo hearing, adopted the investigator’s findings by 2–1 vote and recommended expulsion and transcript notation; Disciplinary Appellate Officer (DAO) affirmed responsibility but reduced sanction to a two‑year suspension.
- Doe alleges flaws in notice, investigation, investigator notes, selective treatment of evidence, biased training materials, panel bias (professional overlap with complainant’s advisor), and disproportionate sanction.
- Doe sued for breach of contract (University disciplinary procedures, training, nondiscrimination), Title IX (erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, deliberate indifference), IIED, NIED, UTPCPL, Title VI, and § 1981; Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court applied Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, parsed contractual promises ("fundamental fairness," "fair investigation/hearing") by reading specific disciplinary-procedure provisions in context, and evaluated sufficiency of pleaded facts for each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — general "fairness" promise | University contract promised fundamentally fair, unbiased process; Doe says process was unfair | Terms limited by specific disciplinary-procedure provisions; no broader unspecified fairness duty | Dismissed insofar as based on general "fairness" promises (no independent obligation beyond specific procedures) |
| Breach — training of investigators & panel | Training materials (e.g., "17 Tips") and instruction biased toward believing complainants, producing gender bias | Procedures require training; Defendant says training met contractual descriptions | Survives: complaint plausibly alleges inadequate/biased training; claim not dismissed |
| Breach — scope/thoroughness of investigation | Investigator failed to pursue leads, reconcile inconsistencies, obtain records/witnesses, or keep accurate notes, harming Doe at hearing | Defendant: any investigative defects were cured by de novo hearing and DAO review | Survives as pleaded damages potentially caused by investigative shortcomings; claim not dismissed |
| Breach — preponderance standard, notice, impartiality, sanctions, meaningful appeal | Doe contends violations of these specific procedural provisions | Defendant says procedures were followed or any errors were harmless / remedied on appeal | Court dismissed claims tied to preponderance standard, notice detail, impartiality (no facts of disqualifying ties), sanction procedure and appeal quality; those theories fail |
| Title IX — erroneous outcome/selective enforcement | Doe alleges gender bias (training, campus materials, institutional response) caused erroneous adverse finding; selective enforcement discovery sought | Defendant: conclusory allegations insufficient; no identified similarly situated female | Court allowed Title IX claims to proceed under erroneous outcome (sufficient allegations raising inference of gender bias) and permitted discovery on selective‑enforcement theory (facts likely in defendant’s control); dismissed deliberate indifference theory |
| Title VI / § 1981 (race discrimination) | Doe alleges racial bias: harsher sanction and credibility differential because he is African‑American | Defendant: allegations conclusory, no particularized facts to infer racial animus or disparate treatment | Dismissed: complaint fails to plead factual basis to infer intentional racial discrimination |
| IIED | University’s alleged actions (branding as rapist, distorted facts, unfair process) caused severe emotional distress | Defendant: even reprehensible administrative conduct falls short of extreme/outrageous tort standard | Dismissed: conduct not sufficiently extreme or outrageous under Pennsylvania law |
| NIED | Emotional/psychological harms caused by disciplinary process | Defendant: no immediate/substantial physical harm alleged | Survived: complaint alleges physical manifestations of emotional injury sufficient at pleading stage |
| UTPCPL | University made deceptive/unfair consumer promises via policies | Defendant: economic‑loss doctrine bars UTPCPL for contract‑rooted losses | Dismissed under Werwinski (economic loss doctrine applies to UTPCPL claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223 (3d Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) materials and factual-pleading principles)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards for legal conclusions)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir.) (Title IX erroneous‑outcome and selective‑enforcement frameworks)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.) (Title IX provides private right for discriminatory disciplinary outcomes)
- Boehm v. Univ. of Pa. Sch. of Veterinary Med., 573 A.2d 575 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (students entitled to procedural safeguards promised by private university)
- Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir.) (economic loss doctrine applied to UTPCPL claims)