John Doe v. Rollins College, 77 F.4th 1340

Background

Jane Roe reported to Rollins College that John Doe sexually assaulted her after a February 2017 encounter; Rollins investigated and an outside investigator concluded Doe violated the sexual misconduct policy by digital penetration without consent. Rollins imposed sanctions (dismissal in effect after degree, loss of commencement participation, alumni event restrictions, contact restriction).
Doe sued under Title IX (selective enforcement and erroneous outcome) and for breach of contract under Florida law (Rollins’ policy stated investigations typically complete within 60 days).
The district court excluded opinions of Doe’s expert (Professor Robert K.C. Johnson) about Rollins’ alleged gender bias, granted summary judgment to Rollins on both Title IX claims, and granted partial summary judgment to Doe on breach of the 60‑day rule (leaving materiality to the jury).
After a three‑day trial, the jury found Rollins’ breach of the 60‑day provision was not material and found for Rollins on the contract claim; Doe appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert’s bias opinions, summary judgment for Rollins on Title IX was proper, and the materiality issue was for the jury (not reviewable as a pure legal question).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony on institutional gender bias	Johnson’s scholarship and database of Title IX litigation qualify him to opine that Rollins’ procedures and outcome were gender‑biased and unfair	Johnson lacks relevant methodological basis/training to link comparative litigation review to specific bias in Rollins’ investigation; opinions would not reliably ‘fit’ the facts	Affirmed exclusion: expert not shown qualified to bridge analytical gap or reliably apply methods to this case
Title IX — Selective enforcement	Rollins investigated and disciplined Doe while failing to investigate Roe for similar conduct; Rollins treated Roe more favorably based on sex	Roe reported alleged misconduct and sought interim measures; Rollins’ decision not to investigate Roe earlier was explained by lack of a complaint and no evidence Rollins knew Doe was incapacitated	Affirmed summary judgment for Rollins: Doe not similarly situated to Roe and no evidence Rollins failed to investigate Roe because of sex
Title IX — Erroneous outcome	Investigator’s procedural flaws, stereotyping training, Dept. of Education pressure, and Rollins’ enforcement patterns support inference that outcome was caused by gender bias	Procedural deviations had neutral explanations; training materials were student‑oriented and not shown to have influenced the investigator; statistics and patterns do not show sex‑based decisionmaking	Affirmed summary judgment for Rollins: record, viewed collectively, fails to permit a reasonable jury to find gender bias caused the outcome
Breach of contract — Materiality of 60‑day breach (post‑trial challenge)	Delay in investigation harmed Doe’s ability to defend (lost evidence, faded memories); breach was material as a matter of law	Whether the delay was material was a fact question for the jury; evidence supported a contrary finding	Affirmed: materiality is a fact issue under Florida law; jury reasonably found the breach was not material; denial of JMOL was correct

Key Cases Cited

Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (establishing the "erroneous outcome" and "selective enforcement" Title IX tests)
Doe v. Samford Univ., 29 F.4th 675 (11th Cir. 2022) (adopted framework—ask whether facts permit a reasonable inference that sex was a motivating factor)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (expert‑testimony admissibility principles)
General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (abuse of discretion standard and the analytical‑gap principle for expert evidence)
Downing v. Abbott Labs., 48 F.4th 793 (7th Cir. 2022) (excluding social‑science expert where methodology did not bridge data to case‑specific conclusions)
Chadwick v. WellPoint, Inc., 561 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2009) (excluding expert where mismatch between expertise and case specifics made testimony unhelpful)
Doe v. William Marsh Rice Univ., 67 F.4th 702 (5th Cir. 2023) (illustrative contrasting fact pattern where summary judgment was reversed on Title IX claims)
Dupree v. Younger, 143 S. Ct. 1382 (2023) (Supreme Court ruling on appellate reviewability of legal issues resolved at summary judgment)