John Doe v. Columbia College Chicago
933 F.3d 849
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- John Doe and Jane Roe, Columbia students, had a sexual encounter in Dec. 2015; Roe reported it as non-consensual in Feb. 2016. Columbia investigated under its sexual misconduct procedures.
- Columbia investigator and Title IX coordinator informed Doe of allegations and procedural rights, repeatedly invited him to submit evidence, and provided multiple opportunities to review investigative materials; Doe submitted documents (texts, letter, toxicology report) before the May hearing.
- A hearing panel found by a preponderance of the evidence that Doe violated Columbia’s sexual misconduct policy as to some allegations, did not find others, and suspended Doe for the 2016–17 academic year; an appeal preserved the outcome.
- Doe sued Columbia and Roe in federal court asserting Title IX claims (discrimination, hostile environment, retaliation) and several state-law claims including breach of contract and emotional distress; the district court dismissed all claims and granted leave to amend, but Doe filed an amended complaint that did not cure earlier defects.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed, concluding Doe failed to plead particularized facts plausibly showing sex-based discrimination, deliberate indifference to a hostile environment, retaliation tied to protected activity, or an arbitrary/bad-faith breach of Columbia’s contractual procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX — discrimination (erroneous outcome/selective enforcement) | Columbia’s compliance with DOE guidance and campus programming created anti-male bias and led to a tainted investigation and finding against Doe | Columbia followed its procedures, gave Doe access to materials and opportunities to present evidence, and corrected potential bias when raised | Dismissed — pleading lacks particularized facts to infer gender-based discrimination |
| Title IX — hostile environment (peer harassment) | Social-media posts, being punched, and name-calling created a gender-based hostile environment and Columbia was deliberately indifferent | The acts targeted Doe as an accused rapist, not because he was male; Columbia investigated and addressed complaints promptly | Dismissed — allegations do not show harassment because of sex or deliberate indifference |
| Title IX — retaliation | Suspension and alleged failure to discipline Roe’s friends were retaliatory responses to Doe’s defense and complaints | Discipline resulted from the panel’s findings on the merits; Columbia investigated Doe’s complaints about others and responded | Dismissed — no plausible but‑for causal link or retaliatory intent alleged |
| Breach of contract (school policies/procedures) | Columbia violated its own procedures, denied document access, and rendered an arbitrary decision | Records show Doe had access, could present evidence and witnesses, and Columbia investigated complaints about others; academic-judgment standard applies | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to show arbitrary, capricious, or bad‑faith exercise of academic judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Trujillo v. Rockledge Furniture LLC, 926 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2019) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
- Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (Title IX discrimination pleading requirements and need for particularized facts)
- Baum v. Purdue Univ., 903 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2018) (examples of biased factfinders and what makes an erroneous-outcome claim plausible)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX hostile-environment framework)
- Galster v. Lakeside School, 768 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2014) (deliberate-indifference standard for peer harassment under Title IX)
- Burton v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 851 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2017) (Title IX retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Raethz v. Aurora Univ., 805 N.E.2d 696 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (student–school contract and deference to academic judgment)
- Frederick v. Northwestern Univ. Dental Sch., 617 N.E.2d 382 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (breach of contract claim against a university requires arbitrary or irrational discipline)