John Doe v. Purdue University
928 F.3d 652
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- John Doe, a Purdue student and Navy ROTC participant, was accused by Jane Doe of sexual misconduct based on incidents alleged in late 2015; Purdue investigated and found John guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, suspending him one academic year and imposing readmission conditions.
- As a result of the suspension, John lost his Navy ROTC scholarship and was expelled from the ROTC program, effectively foreclosing his Navy career path.
- Purdue’s procedures: investigators prepared a report; John received a redacted report minutes before a 30-minute hearing before a three-person Advisory Committee on Equity; John was not given the full investigative report, was prevented from presenting witnesses, and the committee members admitted some had not read the report.
- The decisionmaker (Dean Sermersheim) adjudicated the case after also overseeing the investigation and credited Jane’s account despite never speaking to her directly; Jane’s account to the committee was submitted via a letter from CARE’s director.
- John sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural due process) and Title IX (sex discrimination). The magistrate judge dismissed for failure to state claims; the Seventh Circuit reversed in part and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suspension implicated a protected property interest in continued university enrollment | John: implied contract and entitlements from the student-university relationship gave him a property interest in continued enrollment | Purdue: no specific contractual promise alleged; higher-education enrollment is not a stand-alone property interest | Held: John failed to plead a specific contractual property interest; no property interest shown |
| Whether suspension plus reputational harm satisfied stigma-plus liberty test | John: formal guilty finding disclosed to Navy (which he had to authorize) plus suspension and loss of ROTC scholarship produced stigma plus a change in legal status impairing occupational liberty | Purdue: disclosure was effectively voluntary or self-inflicted, so no actionable stigma; no alteration in legal status beyond reputational harm | Held: John adequately pleaded stigma-plus — formal adjudication, disclosure to Navy, suspension, and loss of ROTC satisfy stigma-plus |
| Whether Purdue’s disciplinary procedures violated procedural due process | John: denial of evidence, inability to present witnesses, panel bias, decisionmakers not reading report, failure to hear or assess accuser’s credibility, investigator/adjudicator overlap | Purdue: procedures are permissible; blending investigator/adjudicator not per se unconstitutional; no specific bias pleaded against administrators | Held: Process was plausibly fundamentally unfair (secret evidence, sham hearing, refusal to consider impeachment evidence); due-process claim adequately pleaded |
| Whether Purdue’s handling violated Title IX (sex bias) | John: university pressured by DOE "Dear Colleague" guidance to zealously adjudicate sexual misconduct, creating incentives to favor complainants; here specific facts (crediting accuser without speaking to her, CARE post blaming men) plausibly show sex-based bias | Purdue: decision was not based on sex; compliance pressure alone insufficient; no direct proof of sex-motivated decision in this case | Held: Combined allegations (DOE pressure, failure to investigate accuser’s credibility, panel conduct, CARE materials) plausibly infer sex discrimination; Title IX claim survives pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (due process requires notice, explanation of evidence, and an opportunity to present one’s side for short suspensions)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1976) (reputational injury alone does not trigger due process; requires stigma-plus)
- Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005) (compelled disclosure to employers can satisfy publication element of stigma-plus)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (framework for Title IX campus-discipline bias claims: ‘erroneous outcome’ and ‘selective enforcement’ theories)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (pressure to avoid liability or bad publicity can inform plausible inference of gender bias in campus adjudication)