297 F. Supp. 3d 573
E.D. Va.2018Background
- In Sept. 2015 Marymount investigated an alleged Nov. 8, 2014 sexual assault after Roe reported the incident; a no-contact order was issued and Doe was notified.
- Investigators interviewed Doe (Sept. 21, 2015) and Roe (Oct. 1 and Nov. 18, 2015); investigators prepared multiple draft reports and provided limited access to Doe and his attorney.
- Doe alleges investigators ignored exculpatory evidence, included objectionable material over his objections, restricted his ability to contact witnesses via the no-contact order, and denied him in-person meeting, witness presentation, and cross-examination at the adjudicative stage.
- Adjudicator Lavanty relied primarily on the investigative report and written statements, found Doe guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, suspended him for two years, and denied his appeal without a hearing.
- Doe sued under Title IX (erroneous outcome/gender-bias), breach of implied contract and covenant of good faith, negligence (special duty), and violation of the common law of associations. Defendants moved to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe plausibly pleaded a Title IX erroneous-outcome claim | Doe alleges procedural flaws, unreliable/inconsistent complainant statements, omitted exculpatory evidence, and specific factual allegations suggesting adjudicator bias | Marymount says Doe fails to allege particularized facts showing the outcome was erroneous or motivated by gender | Title IX claim survives: plaintiff pled articulable doubt as to outcome and particularized inference of gender bias (adjudicator's alleged bias in a later case + other facts) |
| Whether Marymount's policies/handbook created an enforceable contract | Doe contends payment of tuition creates an implied contract entitling him to procedural protections | Marymount contends handbooks/policies are non-contractual and can be unilaterally revised | Breach of contract and implied covenant dismissed: Virginia law treats handbooks as non-contractual; at most tuition implies protection from arbitrary/capricious suspension, which was not pleaded here |
| Whether Marymount/McMurdock owed and breached a special tort duty of fairness | Doe argues a university–student special relationship imposes a duty to exercise special care in disciplinary proceedings | Defendants argue Virginia does not recognize such a tort duty and federal court should not create new state common-law duties | Negligence claim dismissed: court will not recognize a novel Virginia tort absent controlling state precedent |
| Whether Marymount violated the common law of associations by expelling Doe without cause | Doe invokes state association law analogies to challenge his expulsion | Defendants argue inapplicability and that Virginia precedent does not extend association doctrines to this context | Association claim dismissed: court declines to expand Virginia law; even if Gottlieb applied, conflicting evidence makes university action conclusive |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (framework for Title IX discriminatory-discipline claims)
- Miami Univ. v. Doe, 882 F.3d 579 (erroneous outcome elements and requirement of particularized inference of gender bias)
- Harbourt v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC, 820 F.3d 655 (Fourth Circuit on accepting well-pled allegations at pleading stage)
- Gottlieb v. Econ. Stores, Inc., 199 Va. 848 (Virginia's treatment of expulsion/association disputes and limited judicial review)