Smith v. Howard University
Civil Action No. 2021-0920
D.D.C.May 25, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Michaela Smith was expelled by an HCOM Honor Council for allegedly changing an exam answer and subsequently dismissed by the Promotions Committee after the dishonesty finding produced a failing grade.
- Smith sued Howard University for breach of contract (procedural failures in Honor Council proceedings and denial of an appeal from the Promotions Committee) and for violation of Title IX (gender-based animus in denying an appeal).
- Howard moved to dismiss, arguing Title IX was time-barred under the DCHRA one-year limitation and that both Title IX and breach claims were inadequately pleaded or barred by failure to exhaust/perfect internal appeals.
- The court held Title IX is governed by D.C.’s three-year residual personal-injury limitations period (so Smith’s claim was timely) and that her Title IX allegation satisfies Rule 8’s notice-pleading standard.
- The court rejected Howard’s exhaustion/condition-precedent arguments because no contractual exhaustion requirement was shown and concluded the complaint plausibly alleges material breaches of the school’s published procedures.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss as to both Title IX and breach-of-contract claims, finding the alleged procedural defects (e.g., nondisclosure of evidence, denial of advisor/counsel, improper panel composition, refusal to consider an appeal) could be material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations for Title IX | Title IX borrows D.C.’s three-year residual personal-injury period | Title IX should borrow DCHRA one-year period | Court applied D.C.’s three-year residual personal-injury period; Title IX timely |
| Sufficiency of Title IX pleading | Complaint alleges denial of appeal and gender animus, with dates and actors | Complaint fails to plausibly allege gender discrimination | Complaint meets Rule 8 notice-pleading requirements; Title IX claim plausible |
| Effect of failure to exhaust/perfect appeals on breach claim | No express contractual exhaustion; failure to appeal does not bar suit | Plaintiff’s failure to perfect appeals is a condition precedent barring claim | No contractual exhaustion shown; failure to appeal does not defeat claim at this stage |
| Materiality of alleged procedural defects (breach) | Several procedural violations breached HCOM’s policies and could be material | Alleged defects are minor and not material breaches | Alleged defects (nondisclosure of evidence, denial of advisor/counsel, improper panel, denial of appeal) plausibly material; breach claim survives dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (recognizing an implied private right of action under Title IX)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (school liability requires deliberate indifference for student-on-student harassment)
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (federal courts borrow most closely analogous state limitations period)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (practicality favors borrowing residual personal-injury statutes for federal civil-rights claims)
- Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (characterizing certain civil-rights injuries as personal injuries for limitations analysis)
- Carney v. American Univ., 151 F.3d 1090 (D.C. Cir. applied three-year residual limitations period)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (notice-pleading standard for discrimination claims)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (where a contract requires exhaustion, courts enforce it)