983 F.3d 345
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Jeremy Rowles, an African-American Ph.D. candidate at the University of Missouri, was investigated after a white undergraduate (A.B.) complained that his repeated messages, attempts to contact her after rejection, requests for private lessons, and a three‑page love letter made her uncomfortable; the University found he violated sexual harassment and stalking policies and suspended him for two years after appeal.
- Rowles sued the University and four Title IX investigators asserting nine claims: First Amendment (overbreadth, vagueness, retaliation), procedural and substantive due process, Title IX (sex discrimination), Title VI (race discrimination), and Missouri Human Rights Act (race and sex discrimination in public accommodations).
- The district court dismissed some claims at Rule 12(b)(6), denied Rowles’ motion to compel production of the full Title IX files for 60 complaints (providing only summary data), and granted summary judgment for defendants on the remaining claims (Title VI, vagueness, First Amendment retaliation, and others).
- Central evidentiary/discovery dispute: Rowles sought full investigative files to identify similarly situated comparators for his Title VI and MHRA claims; the court denied that request as unnecessary and unduly burdensome, noting Rowles had no expert statistical analysis for disparate‑impact proof.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed: it held (1) the denial to compel was not a gross abuse of discretion, (2) Rowles failed to prove similarly situated comparators (Title VI), (3) the policies were not unconstitutionally vague as applied, (4) First Amendment retaliation claims failed (qualified immunity and no clearly established right), and (5) Title IX/MHRA claims were properly dismissed for lack of plausible allegations of sex‑based bias.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to compel Title IX files | Needed full files to show disparate treatment and identify similarly situated comparators | Summary data was sufficient; full files unduly burdensome; Rowles had not sought narrow production | Affirmed: court did not grossly abuse discretion; Appellees offered more detail on two white students which Rowles declined |
| Title VI (race discrimination) — similarly situated comparators | White students were disciplined less harshly; full records would prove disparities | Rowles failed to show comparators were similarly situated (e.g., graduate vs. undergraduate) | Affirmed summary judgment: Rowles did not show comparators were similarly situated; failed prima facie proof |
| Void‑for‑vagueness (as‑applied) | Policies are vague regarding non‑threatening amorous speech | Policies use objective standards (severe/pervasive; reasonable person) and allow judgment | Affirmed: policies give adequate notice and do not invite arbitrary enforcement |
| First Amendment retaliation | "Amorous" speech was protected and discipline was motivated by speech | Discipline addressed harassment/stalking conduct; officials entitled to qualified immunity | Affirmed: Rowles did not show clearly established First Amendment right; officials entitled to qualified immunity |
| Title IX and MHRA (sex discrimination/public accommodations) | Discipline was motivated by sex; investigators favored the female complainant | Outcome reflected evidence of stalking/harassment, not sex bias; plaintiff failed to allege a biased outcome or proper comparator | Affirmed dismissal: complaint failed to plausibly allege sex‑based motivation; MHRA race claim dismissal as to state law was harmless given Title VI summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (prima facie burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (defining student‑on‑student sexual harassment that can trigger Title IX liability)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (overbreadth doctrine and substantial number requirement)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (vagueness/notice principles and permissible breadth)
- Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (degree of specificity required for noncriminal regulations)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (authority of school officials to regulate student conduct)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (qualified immunity — clearly established right standard)
- United States v. One Assortment of 93 NFA Regulated Weapons, 897 F.3d 961 (district court wide discretion over discovery)