335 F. Supp. 3d 13
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Reginald Robinson, a tenured Howard Law professor, distributed an in-class quiz hypothetical describing Brazilian/bikini waxing in graphic detail and called on two female students to discuss answers; students complained that they were made uncomfortable.
- Howard's Title IX Office (Deputy Coordinator Candi Smiley) investigated, produced a Report finding Professor Robinson committed sexual harassment under the Title IX Policy, and the Provost (Anthony Wutoh) as Decisional Authority issued a confidential letter of reprimand, mandatory sensitivity training, review of future exam questions, and some lecture monitoring.
- Robinson appealed internally (including to the Faculty Grievance Commission), sought outside advocacy (FIRE), filed an EEOC charge (dismissed), and then sued the University and individual officials alleging breach of contract, Title IX violations (erroneous outcome, deliberate indifference, retaliation), Title VII sex discrimination, IIED, NIED, negligence, and requests for declaratory/injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; the Court converted the motion to consider extra-pleading materials (including Smiley’s Report) and denied Robinson’s Rule 56(d) discovery request as conclusory and insufficiently particularized.
- The Court found the Title IX investigation complied with the University’s policy (notice, opportunity to respond, preponderance standard, consideration of context and prior conduct) and granted judgment for defendants on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract / implied duty of good faith | Title IX Policy is incorporated into his employment contract and University violated that policy and procedure | Title IX Policy was properly applied; investigation satisfied notice and response requirements; no breach | Judgment for defendants; no contractual breach proven |
| Title IX — erroneous outcome / gender bias | Finding was erroneous and motivated by anti-male bias in Title IX Office | Proceedings followed a gender-neutral policy; investigation used objective/contextual evidence | Dismissed (insufficient particularized facts showing gender bias or flawed outcome) |
| Title IX — deliberate indifference / retaliation | University was deliberately indifferent and retaliated against Robinson for protesting | Officials acted reasonably; reprimand preceded protected conduct and Provost’s decision final under policy | Dismissed (no deliberate indifference; retaliation not pleaded/untimely) |
| Title VII sex discrimination | Reprimand and monitoring harmed his career and constituted adverse employment action because of sex | Reprimand was confidential and did not affect salary, position, or benefits; mere reprimand not adverse action | Dismissed (no actionable adverse employment action) |
| IIED, NIED, negligence | Investigative process and findings were outrageous, caused severe distress, and show negligent hiring/supervision | Process was within policy, considered evidence, and falls short of extreme/outrageous or negligent conduct | Dismissed (facts do not meet high IIED standard; NIED and negligence fail as matter of law) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute / material fact standard)
- Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (erroneous outcome Title IX theory)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (deliberate indifference standard under Title IX)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (Title VII adverse action elements)
- Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126 (criticism/reprimand alone not adverse employment action)
- Kerrigan v. Britches of Georgetowne, Inc., 705 A.2d 624 (high bar for IIED in employment context)