101 F.4th 485
7th Cir.2024Background
- John Doe, a medical student at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, was suspended and later expelled after being found to have committed physical abuse against another student, Jane Roe, in an off-campus incident.
- Doe applied to the university’s business school, disclosing his suspension but describing the dean’s earlier action as exoneration; this led to a further investigation for misrepresentation.
- Without further opportunity for Doe to respond, Dean Hess expelled Doe from medical school based on findings of dishonesty and unfitness.
- Doe sued the university and officials, alleging violations of Title IX (sex discrimination) and the Due Process Clause.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the university, finding no sex discrimination and that sufficient process was provided.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed both the due process and Title IX claims, and considered the propriety of Doe’s pseudonymous litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX Sex Discrimination | University disciplined Doe based on gender bias | Procedures were gender neutral; no evidence of bias | No evidence of sex discrimination; ruled for defendant |
| Adequacy of Due Process in Expulsion | Was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to be heard before expulsion | Received ample process, including hearings and representation | Due process lacking at critical stage; remand for remedy |
| Pseudonymity/Use of "John Doe" in Litigation | Sought anonymity to avoid reputational harm | No justification for adult anonymity; norm is public litigation | Anonymity not justified; Doe must reveal name or dismiss |
| Existence of a Property Interest in Medical Education | University’s policies create entitlement to continued enrollment | No property right; can expel for any reason | Property interest found; triggers due process protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (limits of Title IX liability for student-on-student harassment)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (minimum due process for student discipline)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests depend on statutes and contracts)
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (due process is distinct from statutory procedural guarantees)
- University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (elaborate adversarial hearings not required in academic settings)
- Doe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (Title IX requires proof of sex-based motivation in disciplinary action)
- Doe 3 v. Elmbrook Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 710 (standard for pseudonymity in federal litigation)