434 F.Supp.3d 735
E.D. Mo.2020Background
- John Doe, a Washington University undergraduate, was accused by "Jane Roe" of sexual assault after an April 2018 encounter; the university’s Title IX panel found Doe responsible and expelled him.
- The panel concluded Roe was incapacitated by alcohol (panel relied on her vomiting, memory gaps, witness statements, and Doe’s admission about the amount of alcohol served).
- Doe sued, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural and substantive due process), § 1985 (conspiracy), Title IX (hostile environment, deliberate indifference, erroneous outcome, selective enforcement), void-for-vagueness, and various state-law claims.
- At dismissal stage, Washington University moved under Rule 12(b)(6); the university is private and Doe argued its Title IX procedures and federal guidance rendered it a state actor or otherwise gender-biased.
- The court dismissed Doe’s federal constitutional and Title IX claims with prejudice (finding no state action and insufficient facts to plausibly show gender bias), and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (dismissed without prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington Univ. is a state actor for § 1983 due-process claims | Univ.’s Title IX enforcement and reliance on OCR guidance made its disciplinary process state action | Private university actions are not state action; no delegation of traditional, exclusive governmental functions | Court: Not a state actor; § 1983/due-process/void-for-vagueness claims dismissed |
| Whether § 1985 conspiracy alleged (private conspiracy to deprive civil rights) | University conspired (with officials/pressure) to deprive men of rights to gain competitive advantage and appease critics | No factual allegations tying state involvement or showing class-based animus required by § 1985 | Court: Allegations conclusory; § 1985 claim dismissed |
| Hostile-environment Title IX claim | Op-eds, protests, and university officials’ statements created a sex-based hostile environment against male respondents | Student speech and expressions of support for complainants are not gender-based discrimination attributable to university | Court: Facts do not plausibly show gender-based hostile environment; claim dismissed |
| Deliberate indifference / selective enforcement / erroneous outcome under Title IX | University applied biased procedures, ignored exculpatory evidence, pressured panel, and treated similarly situated females more favorably | Plaintiff failed to identify comparator females, particular procedural/evidentiary flaws, or specific statements showing gender bias; disciplinary findings rested on evidence | Court: Deliberate indifference theory poorly fits respondent-side disciplinary claims; insufficient particularized facts for selective enforcement or erroneous-outcome claims; all dismissed |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | (Plaintiff pursued state claims after federal counts) | Court discretion to retain or decline jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims | Court: Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982) (private entities are not state actors absent close nexus or delegation of traditional state function)
- Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (2001) (tests for when private conduct may be attributable to the state)
- Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) (private entity performs a state function only when exercising powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts need plausible factual allegations, not conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (discusses minimal-pleading in Title IX disciplinary-bias context)
- Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (rejects Second Circuit’s minimal-pleading approach; scrutinizes Title IX bias claims)
- Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) (deliberate-indifference theory designed for harassment victims, not respondents in disciplinary proceedings)
- K.T. v. Culver-Stockton Coll., 865 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2017) (applies Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard in Title IX context)