Pierre v. University of Dayton, 143 F. Supp. 3d 703

Background

Student Dyshawn Pierre was accused of sexual misconduct arising from a consensual encounter on April 22–23, 2015; the complainant filed a Title IX complaint on May 3, 2015.
University of Dayton Title IX investigators (two law professors certified by ATIXA) interviewed parties and witnesses, compiled a report, and referred the matter to the Office of Community Standards and Civility (OCSC).
Pierre submitted a written statement and evidence to investigators, attended a Behavioral Hearing, and was represented by counsel at the Accountability Hearing before a University Hearing Board (UHB).
The UHB conducted a ~51-minute hearing (Pierre’s closing statement about 20 minutes), found Pierre responsible, and imposed a one-semester suspension; Pierre appealed and the Judicial Review Committee affirmed.
Pierre filed suit alleging breach of contract, negligence (lack of fundamentally fair hearing), violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate, and Title IX violations (erroneous outcome and deliberate indifference), and moved for a temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the suspension.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Pierre entitled to injunctive relief (TRO) pending litigation?	Suspension should be enjoined because disciplinary process was unfair and violated rights.	TRO factors not met: Pierre unlikely to succeed, no irreparable harm, public interest favors university discipline.	Denied — TRO factors weigh against injunction.
Failure to accommodate under ADA/Rehab Act	University should have provided "meaningful representation" or other accommodations for Pierre’s asserted disability affecting verbal expression.	Pierre never requested accommodations during investigation/hearing; accommodations confidential and not triggered; university largely accommodated (written statement, counsel present).	Denied — Pierre failed to timely request accommodation and is unlikely to succeed on merits.
Fundamental fairness / procedural compliance (breach of contract, negligence, Title IX erroneous outcome)	University procedures were applied unfairly, UHB composition and timing violated handbook and produced erroneous outcome.	University followed its Student Conduct System, afforded Behavioral Hearing, opportunity to submit evidence, counsel present (advisory), and appeal process.	Denied — court found procedures were followed and process was fundamentally fair (no abuse of discretion).
Irreparable harm / public interest / harm to others from reinstatement	Suspension harms education and reputation, warrants immediate relief.	Delay in seeking TRO undermines claim of irreparable harm; suspension is time-limited and reversible; public interest favors safe educational environment and institutional discretion.	Denied — no irreparable injury shown; public interest favors allowing university disciplinary process to stand.

Key Cases Cited

Hunter v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011) (sets the four-factor test for TRO/preliminary injunction)
Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Sci., 669 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2012) (after-the-fact accommodation requests do not trigger liability)
Valente v. Univ. of Dayton, 438 Fed.Appx. 381 (6th Cir. 2011) (courts defer to private universities absent clear abuse of discretion)
Ray v. Wilmington Coll., 667 N.E.2d 39 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (issue is whether university judicial board abused its discretion, not whether it provided a trial-like hearing)
American Future Systems, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 752 F.2d 854 (3d Cir. 1984) (public universities have significant interest in carrying out their educational mission)
Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 735 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. 2000) (courts are chary about interfering with disciplinary decisions of private colleges)
Ben‑Yonatan v. Concordia Coll. Corp., 863 F. Supp. 983 (D. Minn. 1994) (public interest can weigh against injunctive relief in campus discipline contexts)