240 F. Supp. 3d 984
D. Minnesota2017Background
- In Dec. 2015 a UST student (Doe) was accused by a female student of non‑consensual digital penetration; police arrested Doe but the county prosecutor declined to pursue criminal charges.
- UST investigated under its Sexual Misconduct Policy, assigned factfinders, held interviews, found Doe responsible by a preponderance standard, and suspended him; an appeal board and appeal officer upheld the finding and extended the suspension.
- Doe sued, alleging six claims: declaratory relief under Title IX (Count I); Title IX—erroneous outcome (Count II); Title IX—deliberate indifference (Count III); breach of contract (Count IV); breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count V); and negligence (Count VI).
- UST moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court evaluated whether Doe pleaded facts plausibly showing gender bias for Title IX claims, whether contractual promises were formed/breached, and whether a tort duty existed for negligence.
- The court dismissed Counts I–V (Counts I, IV, V with prejudice; Counts II and III without prejudice) and denied dismissal of Count VI (negligence), allowing the negligence claim to proceed to develop the factual record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe may obtain declaratory relief based on alleged violation of Title IX regulatory/grievance requirements | Doe contends an implied private right exists to enforce Title IX grievance‑related regulations and seeks declaratory relief | UST argues Gebser forecloses private enforcement of Title IX regulatory requirements; such regulation enforcement is for administrative agencies | Dismissed—no private cause of action to enforce Title IX regulatory grievance requirements (Count I dismissed) |
| Whether Doe stated Title IX claims (erroneous outcome; deliberate indifference) by pleading gender bias | Doe points to comments, disparate questioning/treatment, limited application of policy to men, and alleged federal pressure to punish accused males | UST argues allegations fail to plausibly allege gender‑based motive; many facts are neutral or insufficiently tied to sex discrimination | Dismissed without prejudice—allegations do not plausibly show gender bias (Counts II & III) |
| Whether UST formed and breached a contract (student handbook/policy and related letters) | Doe alleges UST’s Policy and specific letters created contractual promises and that UST failed to follow required procedures | UST argues Minnesota law is reluctant to treat handbooks as contracts and Doe failed to identify specific Policy provisions breached; UST substantially complied | Dismissed with prejudice—no plausible breach alleged and unilateral contract formation unlikely (Count IV) |
| Whether Doe pleaded negligence (duty, breach, causation, injury) | Doe argues UST owed a duty in the student‑university relationship and created a foreseeable risk by operating a disciplinary process; alleged procedural errors show breach and injury | UST contends Minnesota law generally bars negligent breach claims tied to contract and no special duty to protect from third‑party conduct exists | Survived motion—court finds factual development required and that Doe plausibly alleged a duty and breach to proceed (Count VI allowed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (private damages actions under Title IX do not extend to enforcement of administrative/regulatory grievance requirements)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (courts should not lightly second‑guess school disciplinary responses; Title IX scope and school administrators’ discretion)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (erroneous outcome Title IX framework: must allege circumstances suggesting gender bias motivated the outcome)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (posture allowing more lenient inference of gender bias where university faced targeted public pressure to address sexual‑assault complaints)
- Rollins v. Cardinal Stritch Univ., 626 N.W.2d 464 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (student handbook generally does not create a unilateral contract requiring strict compliance; substantial compliance suffices)
- Abbariao v. Hamline Univ. Sch. of Law, 258 N.W.2d 108 (Minn. 1977) (recognition that contractual/commons‑law principles have limited application to student‑university relations)