110 F. Supp. 3d 774
S.D. Ohio2015Background
- Matthew Sahm, a male student, was expelled by Miami University after a disciplinary process found he sexually assaulted A.P.; Sahm denies the assault and challenges the fairness of the proceedings.
- The district court previously dismissed nine of Sahm’s eleven claims with prejudice and allowed leave to amend two Title IX claims to allege facts showing gender bias.
- In the Amended Complaint Sahm alleged investigator Susan Tobergte (a part‑time campus police officer and Task Force member) was biased: she interviewed witnesses, discouraged a witness from testifying, testified to the disciplinary board, and did not disclose all of her roles.
- Sahm also alleged a history of campus sexual‑assault incidents and media coverage (2003–2013), a 2006 Sexual Assault Report criticizing campus culture, and a contemporaneous lawsuit (Mirlisena) and negative publicity about the university’s handling of sexual‑assault issues.
- Miami moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court concluded Sahm’s allegations failed to plausibly show gender‑based discrimination and granted the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sahm plausibly pleaded an "erroneous outcome" Title IX claim (disciplinary result caused by gender bias) | Sahm: investigator bias, investigator testimony, and campus history of handling sexual‑assault cases show causation by gender bias | Miami: allegations show bias against accused students generally, not bias against males; prior incidents and media are remote or postdate proceedings | Court: Dismissed — allegations do not plausibly show gender bias causing the outcome |
| Whether Sahm plausibly pleaded a Title IX "deliberate indifference" claim | Sahm: university policies/practices and publicity demonstrate institutional notice and indifference to gender discrimination in adjudication | Miami: pleadings lack an official‑notice link and do not show deliberate indifference to male students | Court: Dismissed — claim fails for lack of plausible facts showing gender‑based deliberate indifference |
| Whether investigator Tobergte’s multiple roles and conduct constitute gender discrimination | Sahm: Tobergte’s Task Force/police roles and conduct show she was biased against him as a male accused of assault | Miami: investigator’s conduct (discouraging witness, testifying) shows bias against accused perpetrators, not males per se | Court: Dismissed — investigator bias against accused does not equate to sex discrimination against males |
| Whether prior media reports, a 2006 report, or contemporaneous lawsuits establish a pattern of gender‑based decisionmaking | Sahm: historical reports and publicity evidence a pattern of pro‑victim/gender‑biased responses by the university | Miami: prior incidents and reports are remote, not connected to Sahm’s proceedings, or postdate his hearing | Court: Dismissed — media and report evidence too remote or unconnected to support inference of gender bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumed truth for plausibility pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (erroneous outcome Title IX standard—must show flawed outcome and causal connection to gender)
- Mallory v. Ohio Univ., [citation="76 Fed. App'x 634"] (6th Cir. 2003) (adopting Yusuf standard for causation; one dissatisfied plaintiff does not alone show a pattern)
- Wells v. Xavier Univ., 7 F. Supp. 3d 746 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (denying dismissal where plaintiff plausibly alleged university scapegoated male to respond to OCR scrutiny)