Stephen Michael Bowers, Sr. v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
509 F. App'x 906
11th Cir.2013Background
- Bowers, a white male pro se attorney, sues over MC Georgia’s admissions denials (2006–2010) and OCR complaints alleging Title IX discrimination and retaliation under §1983.
- His 2009 OCR complaint preceded the district court denial; a Board of Regents review was requested and denied.
- MCG’s 2009 denial followed a committee’s unanimous recommendation and an allegedly selective summary of favorable information.
- MCG rejected his 2010 application due to an MCAT score considered too old.
- Defendants include MCG, the Board of Regents, and several university officials; district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as failing to state a claim.
- This court reviews the dismissal de novo, applying Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowers has a fundamental-right due-process claim | Bowers asserts a fundamental right to medical education | No fundamental right to public medical-school education exists | No fundamental right shown; claim fail |
| Whether 2010 MCAT-based denial states a substantive due-process claim | Policy arbitrary and capricious | Policy not a substantial departure from norms | Not state a substantive due-process claim |
| Whether Title IX disparate treatment claim is plausible | Math GPA inclusion discriminates against men | Plausibility not shown; no adequate causal theory | Plaintiff failed to state a Title IX claim |
| Whether Dr. Young retaliated under Title IX for OCR complaints | Temporal proximity shows retaliation | Three-month gap insufficient to show causation | No actionable retaliation |
| Whether Board of Regents retaliation under Titles VI and IX is adequately pled | Board actions were adverse retaliation | Adverse acts not enough to deter; causation absent | No causation; Board's denial likely based on unqualified status |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility requirement; more than conclusory statements)
- Phyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1982) (no fundamental right to education under due process)
- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1973) (education not a fundamental right for due process)
- McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994) (due-process fundamental-right limitations)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (causation in retaliation claims; adverse action must be materially adverse)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2005) (retaliation claim under Title IX)
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (plausibility standard applied to Title VII/Title IX claims)