1:20-cv-00027
D.N.M.Sep 8, 2025Background
- Nick Flor, a tenured UNM professor, exchanged大量 messages with graduate student Eva Chavez; Chavez later complained and OEO investigated both parties.
- OEO issued a Preliminary Letter of Determination finding no hostile-environment harassment by Chavez but concluding Flor likely committed quid pro quo sexual harassment (and retaliation); the OEO issued a Final Letter finding Flor violated Policy 2740.
- A separate Policy 2215 investigation found no violation; disciplinary proceedings under Faculty Handbook Policy C07 led to Flor’s one-year unpaid suspension (Jan–Dec 2020) after a sanctioning process that involved recusal of his department chair and appointment of an external vice dean as sanctioning official.
- Flor appealed to the University Peer Hearing Panel, which reviewed procedural and proportionality issues (not the OEO factual findings) and upheld the sanction; Flor then sued in state court, removal followed, and he amended complaints to assert Title IX, contract, covenant of good faith, and declaratory relief claims (plus a remaining state claim against Chavez).
- The district court granted summary judgment to University defendants on Title IX (discrimination and retaliation), breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and dismissed declaratory relief as moot; remaining state malicious-abuse-of-process claim was remanded to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX — gender discrimination (erroneous outcome / selective enforcement / holistic inquiry) | Flor argues procedural irregularities, biased investigation/sanctioning, DOJ pressure, and university statistics support an inference of anti-male bias. | Univ. contends OEO followed policy (including welcomeness/power-differential analysis), procedures were lawful, differences in treatment reflect different roles/standards, and statistics/doj pressure do not prove gender bias. | Court: Summary judgment for defendants — Flor failed to raise articulable doubt about accuracy of outcome or show particularized causal link to gender; selective-enforcement and holistic theories fail. |
| Title IX — retaliation | Flor alleges later OEO action and disciplinary pressure were retaliatory after he shared materials with media and FIRE. | Univ. shows the later complaint was filed by Chavez, OEO cleared Flor, and no evidence ties Univ. to retaliatory motive. | Court: Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence Univ. retaliated. |
| Breach of contract (Policy C07) | Flor claims Univ. violated Policy C07 by removing chair Rogers and appointing Carey (not an Anderson department chair) and by Title IX coordinator involvement. | Univ. argues Policy C07 permits program directors/associate/vice deans to step in, modifications are allowed, removal was reasonable for conflict, and Catena’s review is not proscribed in a way that creates a breach. | Court: Summary judgment for defendants — no breach of Policy C07 shown. |
| Declaratory judgment / due process relief | Flor seeks declarations that University procedures deprived him of property/liberty without due process and fears future application of amended policies. | Univ. argues declaratory relief requires an independent federal claim, and Flor returned to work; claims are moot and duplicative of dismissed due-process claims. | Court: Dismissed as moot and lacking independent federal basis; Count III dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 1 F.4th 822 (10th Cir. 2021) (announcing the Tenth Circuit’s holistic Title IX inquiry and applying McDonnell Douglas framework variants)
- Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 952 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2020) (discussing erroneous-outcome and selective-enforcement tests in Title IX disciplinary cases)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (Title IX applies to gender-based discipline of university employees)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX prohibits retaliation for complaints of sex discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Doe v. Oberlin Coll., 963 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2020) (procedural irregularities can support Title IX discrimination inferences)
- Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (statistical disparities must show discretionary conduct by university to support bias inference)