John Doe v. Princeton University
18-1477
| 3rd Cir. | Oct 25, 2019Background
- Plaintiff John Doe, a closeted male graduate student at Princeton, alleged he was sexually assaulted twice by an undergraduate ("Student X") and thereafter harassed by Student X’s friends (use of a gay slur, calling him a liar).
- Doe and Student X each reported complaints; Princeton’s RRR process convened an investigative panel that charged both students; the panel ultimately found both “not responsible,” and Doe’s appeal was denied.
- Doe alleges procedural defects in the investigation (panel met Student X before Doe, failed to interview all witnesses, obtained Doe’s sexual-history information, allowed Student X to submit new evidence during deliberations) and that Princeton banned him from a campus religious center and refused a no-contact order.
- Doe reported isolation, depression, and suicide attempts to clergy and student services; he sought academic accommodations (midterm extension) which were denied; Princeton offered a leave of absence but later terminated his enrollment for failing to meet a B-average reenrollment condition.
- Doe sued for Title IX violations (disparate treatment, deliberate indifference, retaliation), breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and negligence; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead sufficient facts, and Doe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Princeton discriminated on the basis of sex under Title IX (biased against male victims) | Princeton treats male victims differently; if Doe were female proceedings would differ | Allegations are conclusory and lack comparator or factual basis to infer sex-based disparate treatment | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead facts showing disparate treatment on basis of sex |
| Whether Princeton was deliberately indifferent under Title IX to sexual harassment/hostile environment | Princeton ignored harassment by Student X’s friends and procedural flaws rendered response unreasonable | Investigation and adjudication occurred; alleged conduct (one slur, calling him a liar) was not severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive | Dismissed — alleged harassment not severe/pervasive; response not clearly unreasonable |
| Whether Princeton retaliated in violation of Title IX | Princeton facilitated or initiated charges against Doe and denied academic/psychiatric accommodations in retaliation for reporting assault | Student X filed cross-complaint (Princeton did not initiate); no causal link shown between report and denial of accommodations; Princeton offered leave of absence | Dismissed — no adverse action attributable to Princeton and no causal connection for retaliation claim |
| Whether state-law claims survive: breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence | RRR promises and university representations created enforceable contractual and promissory obligations; Princeton negligently investigated and failed student-services duties | No substantial violation of RRR alleged; promises were aspirational not clear and definite; New Jersey charitable immunity bars negligence claims by student beneficiaries | Dismissed — breach not substantially pleaded; promissory estoppel fails for lack of clear promise; negligence barred by charitable immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX deliberate-indifference / severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases referenced)
- Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, 897 F.3d 518 (3d Cir. 2018) (disparate-treatment comparator framework under Title IX)
- Doe v. Columbia University, 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (pleading requirements in campus sexual-assault contexts)
- Doe v. Columbia College Chicago, 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2019) (conclusory allegations insufficient to show sex-based discrimination)
- Doe v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center, 850 F.3d 545 (3d Cir. 2017) (Title IX retaliation elements)
- Green v. Monmouth University, 206 A.3d 394 (N.J. 2019) (New Jersey charitable immunity and scope of educational institution activities)