Jackson v. Liberty University, 6:17-cv-00041

Background

Jackson, a former Liberty University football player, was accused by student Sarah Browning of sexual assault for an off‑campus encounter; Browning reported the claim to Liberty ~11 months later after she had withdrawn from the university.
Liberty conducted a Title IX investigation, used cooperating witnesses (some granted immunity), held a hearing in Jackson’s absence, and found him responsible; he appealed and lost; Liberty expelled Jackson and annotated his transcript for sexual assault.
Liberty issued a public press release stating that multiple students were found responsible after an investigation and hearing; Jackson alleges the release implied he committed sexual assault and caused reputational and educational harm.
Jackson sued Liberty, several Liberty officials, and Browning asserting 18 claims (Title IX survives; defendants moved to dismiss the rest).
The court dismissed 11 claims (contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, declaratory relief, statutory conspiracy, malicious abuse of process) and allowed seven counts to proceed: Title IX (untouched) and multiple defamation claims against Liberty, its press‑release author, and Browning.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Liberty’s policy documents (The Liberty Way; Sexual Assault Policy) enforceable contracts?	Jackson contends the policies create enforceable contractual rights and procedures that Liberty breached.	Liberty argues the documents are nonbinding guidelines, lack mutuality, and can be unilaterally changed.	Not contracts; dismissed breach and covenant claims.
Is promissory estoppel a viable claim under Virginia law?	Jackson invokes estoppel based on Liberty’s representations about process and fairness.	Liberty points out promissory estoppel is not a recognized cause of action in Virginia.	Promissory estoppel dismissed.
Do negligence claims arise from a legal duty independent of the university policies (e.g., via VHRA/Title IX)?	Jackson asserts duties to develop fair Title IX procedures and investigate carefully, via VHRA incorporation of federal law.	Defendants argue no independent duty exists and VHRA precludes such common‑law causes of action.	Negligence claims dismissed for lack of cognizable legal duty and VHRA preclusion.
Are Liberty’s press release statements capable of defamatory implication?	Jackson contends the release, though facially true, implies he committed sexual assault (defamation by implication/per se).	Defendants argue the release is truthful, authorized by FERPA, and omissions cannot furnish a defamatory implication.	Court finds defamatory implication reasonably inferable; defamation claims against Liberty and author survive.
Does Virginia statutory conspiracy (Va. Code §§ 18.2‑499/500) apply to Jackson’s alleged personal reputational injury?	Jackson alleges Browning conspired to harm careers of football players, causing his injury.	Defendants contend the statute protects business interests, not personal/ employment reputations.	Statutory conspiracy claim dismissed (statute targets business injury).
Can Browning be liable for malicious abuse of legal process for initiating the Title IX investigation?	Jackson asserts Browning used the Title IX process for an ulterior, malicious purpose.	Browning argues the claim requires use of formal legal process (writs/orders), which did not occur.	Abuse of process dismissed: Title IX investigation is not the type of "legal process" contemplated.
Are Browning’s statements to Liberty actionable defamation (and is any privilege overcome)?	Jackson says Browning’s report was false and made maliciously to harm him.	Browning claims qualified privilege for reporting; any maliciousness lacking.	Defamation claims against Browning survive; alleged facts plausibly show actual malice to overcome privilege.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standards for plausible pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and legal conclusions)
Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty., Md., 684 F.3d 462 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausing standard discussion)
Brown v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, [citation="361 F. App'x 531"] (student code not a contract under Virginia law)
W.J. Schafer Assocs., Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., 254 Va. 514 (promissory estoppel not a standalone cause under Virginia law)
Pendleton v. Newsome, 290 Va. 162 (elements of defamation by implication)
Schaecher v. Bouffault, 290 Va. 83 (definition of defamatory statement)
Mullins v. Sanders, 189 Va. 624 (interpretation of "process" in abuse of process context)