Natalie Plummer v. University of Houston, e
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11268
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2011 at the University of Houston, Ryan McConnell and Natalie Plummer were accused of sexual misconduct after videos and a photo showed an intoxicated female student naked and apparently unresponsive in a dorm room and elevator; the students were later expelled following administrative proceedings.
- Female UH Student reported little memory of the incident; no criminal charges were filed, though a nurse found injuries consistent with sexual assault.
- EOS Vice President Richard Baker investigated, prepared a report finding McConnell committed sexual assault and Plummer facilitated and recorded/distributed the conduct; the University later charged them using its 2013 policy.
- McConnell and Plummer had counsel, participated in multi-stage administrative hearings and appeals; the panels reviewed the videos and photo, allowed active participation beyond formal adviser roles, and upheld the findings.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fourteenth Amendment (procedural due process) and Title IX (sex discrimination/selective enforcement). The district court granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed Title IX claims; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application/notice of misconduct standard | Policy change (2013) retroactively broadened offenses; inadequate notice | Conduct violated the 2011 interim policies; charged conduct was plainly prohibited | Court: No retroactivity problem; conduct violated 2011 policy and 2013 policy wording was not applied unfairly |
| Adequacy of process: notice, confrontation, and cross-examination | Plaintiffs lacked adequate notice of adverse evidence; deprived of confrontation and effective cross-examination of victim | Plaintiffs had multiple meaningful opportunities to be heard, saw the videos/photo, and the victim remembered little so her testimony was not central | Court: Due process satisfied under Mathews balancing; additional safeguards would not have changed outcome |
| Investigator/adjudicator conflict (Baker’s multiple roles) | Baker’s roles as advocate, investigator, witness, and adviser created structural bias and deprived them of impartial process | Any alleged bias was immaterial given the graphic evidence; advisor told panels they could reach independent conclusions | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show Baker’s dual roles undermined integrity of proceedings; presumption of adjudicator integrity applies |
| Title IX – selective enforcement / deliberate indifference | Discipline motivated by gender bias; selective enforcement against male accused; procedures reflect deliberate indifference | Discipline focused on acts captured in videos/photo; both accused sexes were processed equally; pleadings fail to show deliberate indifference | Court: Title IX dismissal affirmed — pleadings do not plausibly allege intentional sex-based discrimination or deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975) (courts should not second-guess school administrators’ disciplinary decisions absent constitutional violations)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (due process requires notice and some hearing; extent of process varies with severity of deprivation)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for what process is due)
- Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.) (due process requires notice and some hearing before expulsion from public college)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX private right of action for deliberate indifference to sexual harassment)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX covers retaliation for complaints of sex discrimination)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (undisputed video evidence can justify summary judgment)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (presumption of honesty and integrity in adjudicators despite combining investigative and adjudicative roles)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir.) (Title IX theories: erroneous outcome and selective enforcement)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.) (Title IX and procedural-bias allegations can survive where pleadings plausibly allege bias and procedural unfairness)