Thomas Rossley, Jr. v. Drake University, 979 F.3d 1184

Drake University expelled student Thomas Rossley after finding he sexually assaulted a female student ("Doe"); Rossley sued under Title IX, the ADA, and contract-based theories. The district court granted summary judgment for Drake; Rossley appealed and stipulated dismissal with prejudice of some claims to secure appellate jurisdiction.
Drake’s Code and Sexual and Interpersonal Misconduct Policy (preponderance standard) governed investigations and hearings; procedures allowed a personal advisor with limited rights and cross-examination via submitted questions read by the hearing officer.
Doe reported heavy drinking, a blackout, and later waking to Rossley on top of her; investigators interviewed witnesses, did not test Doe’s underwear or medical records, and found Doe credible. Rossley had been drinking and was on ADHD medication and had limited recollection.
A trained outside investigator recommended a hearing; hearing officer Foxhoven found by a preponderance that Doe was incapacitated and Rossley was more in control, recommended expulsion; a three-member appeals panel affirmed and the President concurred.
Rossley alleged (inter alia) Title IX erroneous-outcome/sex-bias, ADA failure to accommodate ADHD/dyslexia during proceedings, and breach of implied duty of good faith/promissory estoppel; the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Drake on these claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction/finality	District dismissals were not final but Rossley agreed to dismissal with prejudice on appeal	Drake argued no final decision until prejudice dismissal	Court found appellant agreed to dismiss with prejudice and exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291
Title IX — erroneous outcome / sex-motivated discipline	Rossley: procedural flaws, "victim-centered" policies, skewed statistics, and Dear Colleague pressure show gender bias that produced an erroneous outcome	Drake: policies and procedures are gender-neutral; evidence supported credibility findings; statistics and guidance do not prove sex motivation	No genuine dispute that sex motivated discipline; summary judgment for Drake affirmed
ADA (Title III) — failure to accommodate	Rossley: Drake knew of his academic accommodations; constructive notice and his father’s call sufficed to request accommodations during proceedings	Drake: No specific accommodation request was made or explained; Rossley failed to connect requested accommodations to his disabilities as required	Rossley failed to show a specific, reasonable request or necessity; summary judgment for Drake affirmed
Breach of implied duty of good faith & promissory estoppel	Rossley: Drake breached implicit promises/procedural fairness	Drake: No actionable promise or breach	Court affirmed summary judgment for Drake

Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (articulated erroneous-outcome and selective-enforcement frameworks for Title IX claims)
Doe v. Univ. of Ark.-Fayetteville, 974 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2020) (Title IX pleading standard requires plausible inference discipline was sex-motivated)
Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (rejected rigid Yusuf pleading categories; requires plausible inference of sex discrimination)
Menaker v. Hofstra Univ., 935 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2019) (procedural irregularities can support an inference of sex bias under Title IX)
Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (finder’s decisions favoring accuser despite evidence may indicate bias)
Mershon v. St. Louis Univ., 442 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2006) (ADA accommodation framework and plaintiff’s burden to request and explain need)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for summary judgment)
Ruppert v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 705 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2013) (finality rule for appellate jurisdiction)