67 F.4th 702
5th Cir.2023Background
- John Doe, a Rice freshman on a football scholarship, was accused by Jane Roe of failing to disclose a prior herpes diagnosis before consensual unprotected sex; Roe reported the matter to Rice SJP and RUPD.
- Rice placed Doe on interim suspension, investigated via Student Judicial Programs (SJP), and found (by a preponderance) that Doe failed to adequately notify Roe of the risks; sanction: "rustication" and loss of football scholarship.
- Doe appealed within Rice; appeal denied; he later withdrew from Rice and sued under Title IX (erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, archaic assumptions) and state-law breach of contract.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Rice on all claims. Doe appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit held genuine disputes of material fact exist as to Doe’s Title IX claims (reversed and remanded) but affirmed summary judgment for Rice on the breach-of-contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Erroneous outcome (Title IX) | SJP reached a flawed outcome infected by gender bias and ignored exculpatory evidence (texts, other partners). | SJP’s finding was based on Doe’s own admissions that he did not provide sufficient information; decision neutral and supported by record. | Genuine issue of material fact exists; summary judgment improper as to erroneous-outcome claim (reversed/remanded). |
| Selective enforcement (Title IX) | Rice investigated/punished Doe but did not investigate or punish Roe for similar conduct, showing gender-based differential enforcement. | No similarly situated female comparator; Roe wasn’t the subject of a formal complaint, so different treatment is not proof of gender bias. | Material fact question remains whether Rice selectively enforced policies; summary judgment improper (reversed/remanded). |
| Archaic assumptions (Title IX) | University imposed on Doe (male) a duty to educate a female partner about STD risks—reflecting outdated gender assumptions. | University’s standard applies to any carrier regardless of sex; policy neutral and nondiscriminatory. | A reasonable jury could find archaic-assumptions-based bias; summary judgment improper (reversed/remanded). |
| Breach of contract (state law) | Student‑university relationship created an implied contract; Rice’s policies (and promise of nondiscrimination) give rise to contractual obligations. | The student code disclaims contractual rights and did not create enforceable contract terms. | Affirmed: no enforceable contract or breach as a matter of law; summary judgment for Rice affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pederson v. La. State Univ., 213 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2000) (archaic assumptions can show intentional sex discrimination under Title IX)
- Klocke v. Univ. of Tex. at Arlington, 938 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2019) (elements and framework for Title IX discrimination claims)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (erroneous outcome and selective enforcement theories in campus-discipline Title IX suits)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1998) (Title IX private right and standards for liability)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2005) (broad interpretation of Title IX’s private cause of action)
- Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (approach to showing sex was a motivating factor)
- Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 1 F.4th 822 (10th Cir. 2021) (operative question for summary judgment in campus Title IX cases)
- Doe v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 23 F.4th 930 (9th Cir. 2022) (procedural irregularities and rush-to-judgment concerns in campus discipline)
- Plummer v. Univ. of Hous., 860 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2017) (recipient liability under Title IX)
- Van Overdam v. Tex. A&M Univ., 43 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022) (adopting contextual/motivating-factor approach to Title IX disciplinary claims)