John Doe v. University of the Sciences, 961 F.3d 203

John Doe, a male student at the University of the Sciences (USciences), was accused by two female students (Roe 1 and Roe 2) of sexual misconduct; an outside attorney investigator credited the complaints and Doe was expelled.
USciences uses a Student Handbook and a Sexual Misconduct Policy promising investigations that are “adequate, reliable, impartial, prompt, fair and equitable” and to “support complainants and respondents equally.”
USciences uses a single-investigator model: an outside lawyer investigates, there is no live adversarial hearing or cross-examination of witnesses, and separate panels impose sanctions and hear appeals.
Doe alleged (1) Title IX sex discrimination — that USciences was motivated by sex, yielding to federal pressure and selectively enforcing the Policy (investigating and disciplining him but not investigating female students or sanctioning female breaches of confidentiality); and (2) breach of contract — that USciences breached its Handbook/Policy promise of fairness by denying a live hearing and cross-examination.
The district court dismissed Doe’s complaint. The Third Circuit reversed, holding Doe pleaded plausible Title IX and breach-of-contract claims and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doe plausibly alleged Title IX sex discrimination	USciences acted with sex-based motive: implemented procedures in response to federal pressure and selectively enforced the Policy (investigated/expelled Doe but failed to investigate or discipline female students)	USciences followed its Policy and investigator findings; process was neutral and adequate	Reversed dismissal — Doe alleged facts that plausibly support an inference of sex discrimination; court adopts a straightforward plausibility standard (does alleged facts permit inference of discrimination on basis of sex)
Whether USciences breached the contractual promise of fairness in the Handbook/Policy	Handbook/Policy promised fair, impartial process; single-investigator model deprived Doe of a real, live, adversarial hearing and the opportunity to cross-examine accusers, violating that promise	The procedural protections in the Policy (notice, investigator interviews, ability to submit statements, panels for sanction/appeal) satisfied contractual fairness	Reversed dismissal — contractual promise of “fair” and “equitable” treatment requires at least a real, live, adversarial hearing and an opportunity to test witness credibility (cross-examination); Doe plausibly alleged a breach

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply plausibility standard to pleadings)
Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (framework for Title IX disciplinary claims)
Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (Title IX discipline and public-pressure allegations relevant to bias claim)
Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) (plausible inference of sex bias where males discredited and females credited)
Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (procedural fairness requires a hearing and cross-examination when credibility matters)
Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (advocates asking whether facts plausibly infer discrimination on basis of sex)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (federal notions of rudimentary procedural fairness in education disciplinary contexts)
Psi Upsilon of Philadelphia v. Univ. of Pa., 591 A.2d 755 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (Pennsylvania recognition of fairness elements including notice, hearing, cross-examination)
Boehm v. Univ. of Pa. Sch. of Veterinary Med., 573 A.2d 575 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (private university disciplinary proceedings are fair if they include live hearing and cross-examination)
LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., 962 A.2d 639 (Pa. 2009) (contract interpretation: give effect to all provisions)