272 F. Supp. 3d 1289
D.N.M.2017Background
- Three African American men (Ruff, Gongbay, Edwards) were accused in April 2014 by a female UNM student, Courtney Spencer, of kidnapping and gang-rape; plaintiffs allege the sex was consensual and point to witness accounts and Snapchat/video evidence.
- UNM Police (UNMPD) investigated, arrested/charged the men; charges were later dismissed (nolle prosequi); UNM also suspended two student-plaintiffs from football and banned Ruff from campus.
- Plaintiffs allege UNMPD and UNM conducted a flawed, biased investigation: failing to preserve/examine exculpatory video, ignoring inconsistent statements by the complainant, and pursuing charges to appease public/DOJ pressure and gain notoriety.
- Plaintiffs pleaded an 18-count complaint; the opinion addresses only Count XVIII — a Title IX claim against the Board of Regents and individual officers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court accepted plaintiffs’ well-pleaded facts as true for the motion but dismissed the Title IX claim with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title IX authorizes suit against individual university officials | Plaintiffs sued individuals under Title IX | Title IX does not authorize suits against individuals | Dismissed Title IX claims against individual defendants (no individual liability under Title IX) |
| Whether plaintiffs plausibly pleaded an "erroneous outcome" Title IX claim | Plaintiffs allege an erroneous outcome from criminal/disciplinary processes caused by sex bias (pro-victim/anti-male bias due to media/DOJ pressure) | Defendants argue plaintiffs failed to plead a disciplinary finding or facts showing sex was a motivating factor; pressure allegations are conclusory | Court allowed the theory could exist but held plaintiffs failed to plead particularized facts connecting the outcome to gender bias; Title IX claim dismissed (with leave to amend) |
| Whether DOJ/"Dear Colleague"/public pressure plausibly shows gender bias | Plaintiffs contend external pressure motivated UNM to scapegoat male students to appease DOJ/media | Defendants contend DOJ investigation began later and pressure allegations are insufficient and largely conclusory | Court ruled allegations of outside pressure supported at best a pro-victim bias, not unlawful gender bias; insufficient to establish causal link |
| Whether allegations about criminal investigation (UNMPD conduct) can ground Title IX liability | Plaintiffs assert UNMPD failed to investigate properly and that this conduct formed the basis of Title IX sex-discrimination | Defendants argue Title IX targets federally funded institutions and not individual-actor criminal investigations; question whether Title IX can arise from a police/criminal investigation | Court did not finally decide whether a criminal investigation can give rise to Title IX liability; permitted plaintiffs to amend to address pleading deficiencies and to respond to this argument in later briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard — legally conclusory allegations not entitled to assumed truth)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (erroneous-outcome Title IX framework and elements)
- Gossett v. Oklahoma ex rel. Bd. of Regents for Langston Univ., 245 F.3d 1172 (applying Title VII analytical tools to Title IX claims)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (Title IX does not provide individual-capacity suits against school officials)
- Lipsett v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881 (supervisory liability under § 1983, not Title IX)
- Plummer v. Univ. of Houston, 860 F.3d 767 (court restraint in second-guessing university disciplinary decisions)