Doe v. Vanderbilt University
3:18-cv-00569
M.D. Tenn.Sep 30, 2019Background:
- John Doe, a Vanderbilt undergraduate, was investigated by Vanderbilt’s EAD under the 2016–2017 Sexual Misconduct Policy after a complaint by a female student (Jane Roe); EAD found Doe responsible and Student Accountability imposed expulsion, and his appeal failed.
- The Handbook/Sexual Misconduct Policy sets a written investigation, preliminary and final reports, limited appeal grounds to Appellate Officers, and allows advisers who may not speak at meetings.
- Doe filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting Title IX (erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, deliberate indifference), declaratory relief, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, IIED, negligence (including negligence per se), negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent training/supervision against Vanderbilt and individual employees.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the Handbook was incorporated and considered by the court.
- The court dismissed all claims: Title IX theories failed for lack of particularized facts showing gender bias or actionable sexual harassment; contract and promissory-estoppel claims failed because Doe alleged no breach of specific Handbook terms or extra‑contractual duties; tort claims failed as impermissible recharacterizations of contractual disputes or for lack of required elements.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX — Erroneous outcome (gender bias) | Doe: EAD’s flawed process and campus-wide bias against accused males explain the erroneous finding. | Vanderbilt: Complaint lacks statistics, patterns, statements, or specific facts tying outcome to gender bias. | Dismissed — Doe failed to plead particularized causal link showing gender motivated outcome. |
| Title IX — Selective enforcement | Doe: Decision to charge and expel was motivated by his gender. | Vanderbilt: No allegation that similarly-situated females were treated more favorably. | Dismissed — no comparator or facts of disparate treatment. |
| Title IX — Deliberate indifference | Doe: University’s response to the complaint was deficient and discriminatory. | Vanderbilt: Deliberate‑indifference theory requires actionable sexual harassment that is severe, pervasive, and denies access to educational benefit; none alleged. | Dismissed — Doe alleged biased process, not the requisite sexual‑harassment injury. |
| Declaratory judgment | Doe seeks declaration that Title IX was violated. | Vanderbilt: No live controversy if underlying claims fail; discretion counsels against declaratory relief. | Dismissed — no actionable federal claim to underlie declaratory relief. |
| Breach of contract / covenant of good faith | Doe: Handbook created contractual duties; Vanderbilt breached investigation, cross‑examination, counsel access, neutrality, and fairness. | Vanderbilt: Handbook imposes only the procedures it specifies; Vanderbilt complied with those procedures; dissatisfaction with outcome is insufficient. | Dismissed — no breach of specific Handbook terms, no entitlement to greater procedural rights. |
| Promissory estoppel & tort claims (negligence, IIED, negligent training/supervision) | Doe: Relied on Handbook promises; alleged harms including involuntary hospitalization, disclosure of records, and severe emotional injury. | Vanderbilt: A contract governs the duties; promissory estoppel not available to vary a contract; tort claims either duplicate contract or lack elements (duty, breach, causation, extreme conduct). | Dismissed — promissory estoppel improper substitute for contract; tort claims fail for lack of extra‑contractual duty and for failing to plead extreme/outrageous conduct or requisite negligence elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard and plausibility framework)
- Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (adopts Yusuf framework for Title IX theories)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (Title IX theories: erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, deliberate indifference)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (deliberate‑indifference standard for student‑on‑student harassment)
- Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) (external pressure alone insufficient to infer gender bias)
- Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017) (limits court role in reviewing university disciplinary decisions)