Stenzel v. Bemidji State University, 0:17-cv-00580

Background

In Aug. 2014, BSU student Tyler Stenzel and student Brittany Demers had an encounter; Demers later reported nonconsensual sexual activity and sought a harassment restraining order; no criminal charges were filed.
BSU followed MnSCU sexual-violence policy: investigation by a designated officer, investigatory report to a decisionmaker, and appeal rights (including an ALJ hearing for suspensions ≥10 days).
Peterson investigated, Gilbertson (decisionmaker) found Stenzel more likely than not to have violated the policy and imposed a one-year suspension in Nov. 2016.
Stenzel appealed to an ALJ; the ALJ recommended rescission of the suspension and BSU’s President formally rescinded it in July 2017.
Stenzel sued (Feb. 2017) alleging Title IX discrimination and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The district court dismissed both claims without prejudice: Title IX claim for failure to plausibly plead gender-motivated disciplinary action; state-law contract-based claim barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity (and not viable against individual defendants).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BSU violated Title IX by disciplining Stenzel on basis of sex (selective enforcement)	Stenzel: BSU showed gender bias — preferential treatment for Demers, refusal to consider his evidence, unfair process, and failure to investigate Demers when he reported concerns	Defendants: Allegations describe procedural flaws or adverse outcome but do not plausibly show gender was a motivating factor; Title IX targets funding recipients, not individuals	Court: Dismissed Title IX claim — plaintiff failed to allege specific facts showing gender motivated disciplinary action
Whether Stenzel stated a state-law claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing against BSU	Stenzel: BSU breached implied covenant in disciplinary process	Defendants: BSU (MnSCU institution) is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; claim against individuals fails because Minnesota requires underlying contract for this tort	Court: Dismissed state-law claim against BSU as barred by Eleventh Amendment; dismissed claim against individual defendants for failure to plead underlying contract
Whether Title IX can be asserted against individual defendants in their personal capacities	Stenzel sued individual school officials under Title IX	Defendants: Title IX applies to funding recipients, not individuals	Court: Title IX claims against individuals are improper; dismissed those claims
Whether complaint survives Rule 12(b)(6) review given subsequent ALJ/President rescission	Stenzel relied on alleged errors in original process	Defendants: Rescission and procedural record undermine erroneous-outcome theory; allegations still insufficient to show gender bias	Court: Noted rescission (ALJ recommended, president rescinded); plaintiff cannot maintain erroneous-outcome Title IX claim and failed to plead selective enforcement plausibly

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility pleading)
Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (limits on courts second-guessing school disciplinary decisions under Title IX)
Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir.) (selective enforcement standard under Title IX)
Treleven v. Univ. of Minn., 73 F.3d 816 (8th Cir.) (public colleges as arms of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes)
Cooper v. St. Cloud State Univ., 226 F.3d 964 (8th Cir.) (Eleventh Amendment bars state-law claims against state institutions)
Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615 (8th Cir.) (Minnesota public colleges and Eleventh Amendment immunity)