117 F.4th 957
7th Cir.2024Background
- Nicholas Gash, a male student at Rosalind Franklin University, was accused of sexual assault by another student (Jane Roe) after both attended a party and became intoxicated.
- The university conducted a Title IX investigation, during which Gash argued the process was marred by procedural errors and was biased.
- Gash attempted to withdraw from the university, which was denied during the investigation; he was ultimately expelled following a virtual hearing.
- Gash filed suit alleging Title IX sex discrimination and breach of contract under Illinois law, based on alleged procedural missteps and bias.
- The district court dismissed Gash’s claims, finding no plausible inference of sex-based discrimination or breach of contract.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding procedural flaws but no evidence of sex-based animus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether university’s errors in the Title IX process constituted sex-based discrimination under Title IX | University’s procedural mistakes and reliance on obsolete federal guidance evidenced anti-male sex bias | Alleged mistakes were at most pro-victim/pro-complainant bias, not anti-male; guidance was rescinded; no evidence of sex-based animus | University’s errors did not plausibly allege sex-based discrimination; Title IX claim dismissed |
| Whether extending Title IX jurisdiction to off-campus conduct was sex-based discrimination | Extension violated Title IX regs and showed sex bias | No evidence that policy was applied discriminatorily by sex | Extension not tied to sex bias; claim dismissed |
| Whether procedural errors (e.g., removal from hearing, unequal questioning) supported sex discrimination claim | Errors reflected bias against male respondents | Flaws did not reflect sex-based animus, applied to both parties | Errors might show process flaws, but no plausible inference of sex discrimination |
| Whether the university breached its contract with Gash under Illinois law | University acted arbitrarily/bad faith, violating its own and Title IX policies | University exercised academic judgment, not arbitrary/capricious | Breach of contract claim failed; no facts showed arbitrary or bad faith conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Columbia Coll. Chi., 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2019) (high burden to show university’s process was motivated by sex bias; procedural errors alone are insufficient)
- Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (plausible sex discrimination under Title IX must be supported by facts creating inference of bias)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for stating a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must allege facts that plausibly entitle plaintiff to relief)
- Doe v. Univ. of S. Ind., 43 F.4th 784 (7th Cir. 2022) (public or pro-complainant pressure alone is not evidence of sex-based discrimination)