Doe v. University of Denver, 952 F.3d 1182

Background

John Doe, a male student, was accused in April 2015 of non‑consensual sexual contact by Jane Doe arising from a October 2014 encounter; DU’s Office of Equal Opportunity investigated and, on a preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence basis, found Doe responsible.
No formal hearing was held; an outcome council reviewed the investigation and expelled Doe; his internal appeal was denied.
Doe sued University of Denver and employees alleging (1) Fourteenth Amendment due process violations (claiming DU was a state actor) and (2) Title IX discrimination on the basis of gender; he also asserted state‑law claims.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on both federal claims; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. Doe appealed.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held Doe failed to show DU was a state actor under the Fourteenth Amendment and failed to adduce sufficient evidence that DU’s actions were motivated by gender in violation of Title IX.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
State‑actor for Fourteenth Amendment due process	DCL guidance and threat of loss of federal funds made DU effectively a state actor	Federal pressure or spending conditions do not convert a private university into a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes	Plaintiff failed to show state involvement; Fourteenth Amendment claim fails; summary judgment affirmed
Exclusion of expert report (Prof. Gruber) at summary judgment	Gruber’s report documents gender‑stereotyped training and procedural defects and should be considered to oppose Title IX summary judgment	Report was not cited to the Title IX argument in the summary‑judgment briefing and defendants also challenged admissibility	No abuse of discretion: district court properly declined to consider the report for the Title IX claim because plaintiff failed to cite particular parts to support that claim
Title IX: DCL/federal pressure and campus statistics create inference of anti‑male bias	The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, DU’s compliance, and a near‑totality of female complainants/male respondents show a bias against men	DCL is gender‑neutral; statistics admit nondiscriminatory explanations; external pressure alone cannot show gender‑motivated decisionmaking	DCL and bare statistics are insufficient without particularized, case‑specific evidence of gender‑based motive; Title IX claim fails
Investigator conduct, procedural irregularities, and sanction severity	Investigators disregarded exculpatory leads, treated complainant more favorably, and outcome council imposed expulsion contrary to mitigating factors—together indicate gender bias	Evidence shows anti‑respondent or pro‑complainant bias but not discrimination on the basis of gender; DU policy typically sanctions non‑consensual penetration with dismissal	Procedural flaws and anti‑respondent bias do not reasonably infer anti‑male bias; sanction consistent with policy; Title IX claim fails and summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (state‑action test; private conduct not ordinarily subject to Fourteenth Amendment)
Browns v. Mitchell, 409 F.2d 593 (10th Cir.) (private university conduct not state action)
Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir.) (plaintiff’s burden at summary judgment to produce evidence satisfying state‑action tests)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (Title IX enforceable through implied private right of action)
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (Title IX covers disparate treatment claims)
Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir.) (context on DCL and campus‑investigation reforms)
Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.) (procedural irregularity can support inference of bias when paired with gender‑specific pressure)
Haidak v. Univ. of Mass.-Amherst, 933 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (statistical disparities often admit nondiscriminatory explanations)
Doe v. Columbia Coll. Chi., 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir.) (external pressure alone insufficient; needs particularized "something more")
Adamson v. Multi Cmty. Diversified Servs., Inc., 514 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir.) (evidence of bias against a gender‑neutral class does not, by itself, prove gender discrimination)