John Doe v. Loyola University Chicago
100 F.4th 910
7th Cir.2024Background
- John Doe was expelled from Loyola University Chicago for alleged non-consensual sexual activity with another student, Jane Roe.
- Doe filed suit against Loyola, claiming sex-based discrimination under Title IX and breach of contract under Illinois law.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Loyola; Doe appealed.
- During appeal, the court raised issues regarding mootness (as Doe had already graduated from a different university) and the continued use of pseudonyms for the parties.
- The appellate court requested post-argument memoranda on the appropriateness of Doe's use of a pseudonym and possible mootness of the case given developments since expulsion.
- The court remanded to the district court to address mootness and anonymity, requesting further factual inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness (Justiciability) | Compensatory damages or other relief still possible | No practical remedy available; expulsion consequences moot | Remanded for fact-finding on possible damages |
| Availability of Compensatory Damages | Not clearly articulated | Cannot be awarded punitive/emotional damages under Title IX | District court to resolve compensatory damages |
| Anonymity (Pseudonyms for Parties) | Pseudonym needed to avoid reputational/employment harm | Common use in Title IX litigation; concern for victim's ID | Each pseudonym must be justified individually |
| Protection of Victim’s Identity | Revealing Doe’s name could reveal Roe’s | Unlikely more info revealed now than after expulsion | District court to determine if Roe’s ID protected |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (bar on punitive damages under Spending Clause statutes)
- Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (damages for emotional distress not available under Spending Clause statutes)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (plaintiff need not win on damages for justiciability)
- Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869 (public identification is a core judicial norm; exceptions are narrow)
- Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128 (transparency about parties’ identities promotes public understanding)
- E.A. v. Gardner, 929 F.3d 922 (only "exceptional circumstances" justify adult pseudonymity)