85 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2015Background
- Two related cases captioned as Jane Doe v. HHS and Jane Doe v. DOE seek mandamus and declaratory relief in the District of Columbia against federal agencies.
- Plaintiff alleges Title IX and Title IV violations, as well as ACA, APA, and constitutional claims, arising from UVA’s handling of a December 2011 sexual harassment matter.
- UVA investigated the incident; the university ruled in favor of the alleged offender, prompting OCR complaints to DOE and HHS.
- DOE dismissed the complaint but began a broader compliance review of UVA; HHS requested additional information but took no further action according to plaintiff.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the court held all motions warranted and granted them.
- The court concluded Section 304 of VAWA did not affect Title IX/Title IV standards or create private rights of action against agencies; several counts were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus relief is appropriate. | Doe seeks compelled action to resolve complaints promptly. | Regulations require prompt investigation, not guaranteed prompt resolution; no clear right to timing. | Mandamus claim dismissed; no right to prompt resolution established. |
| Whether APA claim is barred. | APA relief for systemic delays against agencies is proper. | WEAL bars APA review when private rights exist to enforce civil rights; damages the enforcement scheme. | APA claim dismissed; WEAL precludes jurisdiction over APA claim. |
| Whether Counts III–VIII state claims after Section 304 amendments. | VAWA Section 304 changes standards for campus disciplinary processes affecting Title IX/IV outcomes. | Section 304 amended only Clery Act subsections and did not alter Title IX/IV standards or create private rights. | Counts III–VIII dismissed; no substantive change to Title IX/IV from Section 304. |
| Whether Counts I, VI, VII, VIII survive under standing/claims doctrine. | Claims relate to delayed redress and impact on First Amendment, etc. | No concrete injury, no standing; claims fail on failure to state a claim or lack of jurisdiction. | Counts I, VI–VIII dismissed; lack of standing or failure to state claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Women’s Equity Action League v. Cavazos, 906 F.2d 742 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (APA review barred where private rights enforcement exists for civil-rights violations)
- Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (S. Ct. 1979) (implied private right of action under Title IX remains viable despite changes)
- Nat’l Wrestling Coaches Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 366 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (implied private rights of action under Title IX persistent despite intervening changes)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (S. Ct. 1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d 899 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (mandamus requires clear right and no other adequate remedy)
- Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (court may undertake independent jurisdictional fact-finding)
- James Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (analyze jurisdiction by liberal inference and factual allegations)
- Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (support for standards of review in jurisdictional dismissals)