342 F. Supp. 3d 904
S.D. Iowa2018Background
- Rossley, a male Drake student, was accused by a female student (Jane Doe) of sexual assault after an October 2015 incident; Drake investigated, held a disciplinary hearing, and expelled Rossley for sexual misconduct.
- Investigators (outside investigator Sirna and Drake Public Safety personnel) interviewed multiple witnesses; Sirna concluded Jane Doe was incapacitated and found her more credible; the report did not analyze Rossley’s separate allegation that he was assaulted.
- Rossley asserted he has ADHD, mild dyslexia, and word‑retrieval issues and had received academic accommodations, but he did not request accommodations during the Title IX process.
- Rossley sued Drake asserting Title IX claims (erroneous outcome, deliberate indifference, selective enforcement), an ADA (Title III) failure‑to‑accommodate claim, and state contract claims (breach of contract, covenant of good faith and fair dealing, estoppel).
- On summary judgment the court: granted defendants’ motion on Title IX (erroneous outcome and deliberate indifference), on the ADA claim, and on several contract theories; denied summary judgment on Title IX selective‑enforcement and on contract claims alleging Drake failed to investigate Rossley’s complaint and discriminated on the basis of sex.
Issues
| Issue | Rossley’s Argument | Drake’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX — Erroneous outcome (bias caused wrong result) | Evidence and procedures (investigative choices, trauma framing, victim‑centered policy, gender statistics) show gender bias caused an erroneous disciplinary outcome | No proof the process or outcome was motivated by gender; victim‑centered/trauma‑informed approach is gender neutral; statistics and Dear Colleague pressure insufficient | Court granted summary judgment for Drake — no genuine issue that gender motivated the outcome |
| Title IX — Deliberate indifference for failing to investigate Rossley’s claim that he was assaulted | Drake refused to meaningfully investigate Rossley’s allegation; Parker reportedly told Rossley’s father it would be considered retaliation | One incident does not show a pattern; plaintiff cannot show Drake’s inaction caused ongoing harassment or deprived access to education | Court granted summary judgment for Drake — plaintiff failed to show deliberate indifference causing severe/pervasive harm |
| Title IX — Selective enforcement (discipline initiated against Rossley but not Jane Doe) | Drake initiated proceedings against Rossley but did not pursue Rossley’s complaint against Jane Doe; Rossley alleges he was discouraged from filing and thus was treated differently because of gender | Drake says Rossley’s counter‑allegation was investigated and found meritless or was not pursued by Rossley; general anti‑retaliation warnings applied equally | Court denied summary judgment — genuine disputes (whether Rossley was dissuaded, whether similarly situated) preclude resolving selective‑enforcement claim at summary judgment |
| ADA (Title III) — Failure to accommodate in investigatory/hearing process | Rossley needed procedural accommodations (companion in interviews, written questions in advance, extra time) and Drake had constructive notice from his academic accommodations | Rossley never specifically requested accommodations in the disciplinary process; constructive notice does not substitute for a specific request; father’s demand did not suffice | Court granted summary judgment for Drake — no genuine issue that Rossley or his counsel requested specific reasonable accommodations |
| State contract claims (breach of Code/Policy; estoppel; covenant) | Drake breached its Code/Policy by failing to investigate Rossley’s complaint and by sex discrimination; estoppel and covenant claims arise from Drake’s promises | Code/Policy are the contract; many alleged grievances are encompassed by contract terms and fail as pleaded; promissory estoppel and covenant claims subsumed by breach claim | Court denied summary judgment on the contract claim tied to failure to investigate Rossley and sex discrimination (genuine factual disputes); granted summary judgment on other alleged contractual breaches and on estoppel/covenant claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (articulated theories for Title IX disciplinary‑proceeding claims including erroneous outcome and selective enforcement)
- Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (discussed standards for erroneous‑outcome Title IX claims and gender‑based patterns at motion‑to‑dismiss stage)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (deliberate indifference standard for peer‑on‑peer harassment under Title IX; severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive required)
- Mershon v. St. Louis Univ., 442 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2006) (elements for ADA/Title III failure‑to‑accommodate claims in higher education; plaintiff must request reasonable accommodations)
- Univ. of St. Thomas v. [Name omitted by court], 240 F. Supp. 3d 984 (D. Minn. 2017) (caution against second‑guessing university credibility determinations; Title IX not an invitation to re‑adjudicate factual findings)
- Doe v. Boston College, 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018) (after discovery, conclusory statistical assertions of bias are insufficient to survive summary judgment)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (on a Rule 12(b)(6) record, outside pressure and factual context can support an inference of bias; distinguished here on summary judgment)
- K.T. v. Culver‑Stockton Coll., 865 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2017) (plaintiff must show school’s deliberate indifference deprived access to educational program)