299 F. Supp. 3d 242
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff, a UMass Amherst student with two prior alcohol-related disciplinary incidents, was accused by a female student (Gibney) of assault during a study-abroad trip; the University issued a Notice of Charge and a no-contact directive.
- Plaintiff repeatedly violated the no-contact directive (≈1,700 texts; ≈300 calls over five weeks), met with Gibney for sexual contact, appeared intoxicated at her workplace, and required emergency medical attention after one episode.
- The Dean’s Office issued three Notices of Charge, imposed an interim suspension, and ultimately convened a student Hearing Board; Plaintiff attended the hearing by phone, counsel was present but students could not have an attorney advocate, and the Board limited some evidence.
- The Hearing Board found Plaintiff responsible for physical assault and failure to comply with university directives, but not responsible for endangering behavior or harassment; the Senior Associate Dean reviewed the record, considered Plaintiff’s disciplinary history, and imposed expulsion.
- Plaintiff appealed to the University Appeals Board (UAB), which upheld the findings and sanction; Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process and equal protection) and Title IX, and both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court concluded the University’s process met constitutional due process and rejected Title IX and equal protection claims for lack of evidence of gender-based bias; summary judgment was entered for Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice for no-contact orders and interim suspension | Haidak: University failed to reaffirm/no written notice after May conference; mischaracterized order so he lacked notice of consequences | University: Three written Notices of Charge and conferences provided clear, constitutionally adequate notice | Held: Notice adequate under due process; no further re-affirmation required |
| Right to pre-deprivation hearing before interim suspension and expedited hearing | Haidak: Suspension imposed without hearing or finding of imminent threat; expedited hearing required under CSC | University: Post-deprivation process and timely conferences satisfied Mathews balancing; practical constraints (student abroad, summer) justified process | Held: No due process violation; pretermination procedures were a sufficient check against error |
| Fairness of Hearing Board (evidence exclusions, counsel participation, cross-examination, delay) | Haidak: Exclusion of TRO transcript, mother’s statement, bite photo; limited questioning and counsel’s role; seven-month delay prejudiced him | University: Board procedures satisfied minimal constitutional protections; exclusions did not alter outcome; delay regrettable but not outcome-determinative | Held: Hearing was fundamentally fair; procedural imperfections did not violate due process |
| Title IX / selective enforcement / deliberate indifference (gender bias) | Haidak: University enforced policy against him but not Gibney, and data show males disciplined more severely; UMass was deliberately indifferent to alleged violence by Gibney | University: No evidence decision-makers were motivated by gender; comparator incidents lack context; plaintiff declined to pursue charges against Gibney; expert data show only a trend | Held: Title IX and equal protection claims fail for lack of proof that gender motivated proceedings or sanctions; deliberate indifference not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Brandeis Univ., 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. 2016) (context on student-discipline conflicts between due process and campus safety)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (constitutional requirement of notice and opportunity to be heard in school suspensions)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for what process is due)
- Gorman v. Univ. of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.) (scope of procedural protections in university disciplinary proceedings)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir.) (Title IX framework: erroneous outcome and selective enforcement analyses)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pretermination hearing standard requiring an initial opportunity to respond)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX deliberate indifference standard for hostile educational environment)
- Gomes v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 365 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D. Me.) (student has no constitutional right to post-deprivation appeals once due process satisfied)