255 F. Supp. 3d 1064
D. Colo.2017Background
- Plaintiff, a male student, was expelled by University of Colorado Boulder after a Title IX investigation concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that he raped two female students in separate incidents; individual University officials (Title IX coordinator, investigator, and head of Student Conduct) are named as defendants.
- Investigation began after an anonymous call; Plaintiff was summarily suspended, later notified, met (or submitted written statements), and his counsel sought access to the file and protested procedure.
- Investigator Tracy-Ramirez interviewed the two complainants and about ten witnesses, found the complainants and witnesses credible, Plaintiff not credible, and issued a report leading to expulsion and a permanent transcript notation.
- Plaintiff alleges Title IX sex discrimination (biased process against males), Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violations, and state-law claims (breach of contract, bad faith, estoppel).
- Court considered investigator report and Student Conduct Code attached to the complaint; motions to dismiss filed by individual defendants and the University.
- Court dismissed all claims against the individual defendants with prejudice, dismissed Title IX claim with prejudice, dismissed state-law claims on Eleventh Amendment grounds, and dismissed procedural due process claim against University in part but allowed limited leave to amend to name proper state official for prospective injunctive relief (expungement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title IX claim plausibly pleads sex discrimination (bias against males) in disciplinary process | Plaintiff contends investigator/university were biased against him because he is male, citing all-female Title IX team, investigator's victim-advocacy background, DOE pressure, and disproportionate discipline of males | University: allegations amount to pro-victim enforcement or are conclusory; pressure from DOE and gender makeup do not show anti-male motive | Dismissed Title IX claim — plaintiff failed to plead a plausible inference of gender bias (pro-victim explanation was an obvious alternative) |
| Whether procedural due process claim properly pleaded and against whom (prospective relief) | Plaintiff alleges multiple process defects (suspension without complaint, delayed notice, limited access to file, no hearing or cross-examination, adverse inferences, no appeal) and seeks injunctive/expungement relief | Defendants argue pleading defects (should bring §1983), Eleventh Amendment bars damages against state/university, and individual defendants have qualified immunity | Procedural due process claim construed under §1983; damages/retrospective relief barred by Eleventh Amendment; prospective injunctive relief (expungement) may proceed only if proper state official is named — claim dismissed without prejudice to amend to name appropriate official |
| Whether individual defendants are immune from suit for damages (qualified immunity) | Plaintiff argues defendants violated clearly established due process rights by their procedures and biases | Individual defendants claim qualified immunity because the specific procedural rights plaintiff alleges were not clearly established such that they would have known their conduct violated federal law | Court held individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity; procedural due process claim against them dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether state-law claims and declaratory relief against the University can proceed in federal court | Plaintiff seeks breach of contract, covenant of good faith, estoppel, and declaratory relief (including expungement) | University asserts Eleventh Amendment bars state-law claims and non-consenting state defendants; only Title IX waiver applies to Title IX claims | State-law claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Eleventh Amendment). Declaratory/injunctive relief limited: prospective expungement may be pursued via Ex parte Young against proper state official; other declaratory claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (private Title IX damages remedy where institution is deliberately indifferent to known severe student-on-student harassment)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile-environment sexual harassment actionable under Title VII)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must plausibly show unlawful purpose and not rest on conclusory allegations)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (students have property interest in public education; some due process required, but immediate suspension allowed if student is a continuing danger)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials to remedy ongoing violations of federal law)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity standard — plaintiff must show clearly established law)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussed minimal plausible-inference standard for Title IX discrimination pleadings)
- Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (district court decisions are not binding precedent for qualified-immunity/clearly-established-law analysis)