John Doe v. David Baum
903 F.3d 575
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- John Doe (male) and Jane Roe (female) had a sexual encounter after a fraternity party; Roe later complained she was too intoxicated to consent.
- University investigator interviewed 25 witnesses (including both parties); investigator found the evidence in equipoise and recommended closing the case in Doe’s favor.
- Appeals Board (three-member panel) reviewed the record in closed sessions without new evidence, found Roe more credible, reversed investigator, and the university imposed sanctions; Doe withdrew from school.
- Doe sued, alleging procedural-due-process violations (no opportunity for live cross-examination when credibility was dispositive) and Title IX claims (erroneous outcome, archaic assumptions, deliberate indifference). District court dismissed; Doe appealed.
- Sixth Circuit addressed whether due process requires a hearing with cross-examination when credibility is central and whether Doe plausibly pleaded Title IX erroneous-outcome and other theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required live cross-examination when credibility determined outcome | Doe: University’s finding rested on credibility; due process required a hearing allowing live cross-examination (or cross-examination by an agent) before a neutral factfinder | Univ: Written statements and opportunity to respond to investigator were sufficient; no need for live cross-examination | Reversed dismissal: where credibility is disputed and material, due process requires opportunity for cross-examination before a neutral fact-finder; plaintiff plausibly stated a claim |
| Whether Doe’s police interview constituted an admission obviating need for cross-examination | Doe: He did not admit he knew Roe was incapacitated; statements do not negate claim | Univ: Doe conceded facts in police interview, so cross-examination unnecessary | Court: At pleading stage, police report did not show Doe admitted critical facts; claim remains plausible |
| Whether Title IX erroneous-outcome claim was plausibly pleaded | Doe: Board credited female witnesses, discounted male witnesses; external pressure (DOE investigation, media) and differential treatment suggest gender bias causing erroneous outcome | Univ: General pressure to address sexual assault and procedural errors don’t show gender bias or causal link to Doe’s result | Reversed dismissal as to erroneous-outcome: pleadings plausibly cast doubt on accuracy and allege particularized circumstantial ties to gender bias sufficient at Rule 12(b)(6) stage |
| Whether Title IX archaic-assumptions or deliberate-indifference theories apply | Doe: University relied on sex stereotypes and was deliberately indifferent to sex discrimination in its processes | Univ: Those theories are inapplicable here; deliberate-indifference applies to harassment, archaic-assumptions applies to athletics | Affirmed dismissal for these theories: court holds archaic-assumptions not appropriate outside athletics and deliberate-indifference claim not pleaded because no actionable sexual-harassment theory alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Flaim v. Med. Coll. of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2005) (cross-examination may be required when credibility is central in student-discipline proceedings)
- Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017) (when credibility is disputed, due process requires opportunity for cross-examination before neutral factfinder)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for what process is required)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (opportunity to be heard is constitutional minimum)
- Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (Iqbal pleading standards and inferences)
- Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (Title IX erroneous-outcome theory; external pressure plus circumstantial facts can survive pleadings)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (Title IX plausible-bias pleading where campus criticism and investigator’s prior criticism supported inference of bias)