139 F. Supp. 3d 989
W.D. Mo.2015Background
- Ahmed Salau, a University of Missouri student, was investigated and disciplined in 2012 for alleged non‑consensual sexual behavior and related student conduct violations; he was expelled after refusing to participate in a formal hearing following dismissal of his attorney.
- Salau filed an amended complaint asserting 12 causes of action against the University and individual officials (Deaton, Lucas, Young, and two others), including Title IX claims, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 claims, vacatur of an arbitration decision, promissory estoppel, and requests for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Salau responded to one motion but did not respond to others despite extensions.
- The core factual allegations relevant to the legal claims: alleged addition of charges after disputes with staff, denial of witness contact information, denial of continuance for counsel (and Fifth Amendment concerns), a hearing conducted in his absence, and an affirmed expulsion and denial to take finals.
- The district court evaluated each count under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard and addressed qualified immunity for individual defendants where applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX erroneous outcome (sex discrimination) | University disciplined Salau because of gender bias and wrongful outcome | Complaint lacks particularized facts showing gender‑bias causation or pattern; mere dissatisfaction with result is insufficient | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead facts showing gender bias was a motivating factor |
| Title IX hostile educational environment | Salau was subjected to less favorable treatment and a hostile environment because of sex | No allegations that males generally were treated worse; facts refer only to Salau’s case | Dismissed — did not plead harassment "based on sex" or widespread disparate treatment |
| § 1985 civil conspiracy | Defendants conspired to deprive Salau of rights (meeting of the minds, class‑based animus toward male respondents) | Plaintiff failed to plead class‑based animus or particularized facts showing an agreement | Dismissed — conclusory conspiracy allegations and no class‑based animus pleaded |
| § 1986 failure to intervene | Officials who could have prevented the §1985 conspiracy failed to act | §1986 requires a valid §1985 predicate | Dismissed — §1985 claim failed, so §1986 claim cannot stand |
| § 1983 procedural due process | Denial of witness info, added charges, denial of continuance deprived Salau of due process | Salau received notice, opportunity to be heard; he voluntarily left; officials entitled to qualified immunity | Dismissed — procedural due process not plausibly alleged; qualified immunity applies |
| § 1983 substantive due process | Disciplinary actions were so shocking as to violate substantive due process | No fundamental right to public higher education; conduct not conscience‑shocking; qualified immunity | Dismissed — no fundamental right alleged; qualified immunity applies |
| § 1983 equal protection | Treated differently than others (including other students/cases) | No protected‑class allegation; "class of one" inappropriate in discretionary student discipline; no specific similarly situated comparators | Dismissed — failed to plead protected class or permissible class‑of‑one claim; no plausible disparate‑treatment facts |
| § 1983 self‑incrimination (Fifth Amendment) | Young forced Salau to testify without counsel, violating Fifth Amendment | No clearly established right to counsel at student conduct hearing; Salau discharged his attorney; panel denied continuance | Dismissed — qualified immunity; right not clearly established in this context |
| § 1983 free speech (retaliation) | Young added charges in retaliation for Salau’s protected speech criticizing selective persecution | Complaint fails to adequately plead that Salau engaged in protected speech or that speech was a but‑for cause of adverse action | Dismissed — failed to plead protected activity, causation, and factual detail |
| Vacatur of arbitrator’s decision | Hearing was arbitration and should be vacated under Missouri Arbitration Act | No agreement to arbitrate; student conduct hearing is not arbitration absent consent | Dismissed — no arbitration agreement alleged, so vacatur claim fails |
| Promissory estoppel | Officials promised fair treatment; Salau relied to his detriment | No definite, specific promise pleaded; reliance not detailed | Dismissed — failed to plead definite promise and reliance |
| Declaratory and injunctive relief | Requests reinstatement, record changes, and injunctions | Underlying claims fail; no irreparable harm shown for injunctive relief | Dismissed — declaratory relief needs viable claims; injunction denied for lack of irreparable harm and failure on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim and legal conclusions are not entitled to an assumption of truth)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard for federal complaints)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (Title IX erroneous outcome framework requiring doubt on accuracy of outcome and causation)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class‑of‑one equal protection claims inappropriate where discretion requires individualized assessments)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity shields officials unless rights were clearly established)
- Greenhill v. Bailey, 519 F.2d 5 (8th Cir. 1975) (student disciplinary hearings are not analogous to criminal proceedings regarding counsel and formalities)
- Zink v. Lombardi, 783 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2015) (naked assertions without factual enhancement are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)