Waters v. Drake
105 F. Supp. 3d 780
S.D. Ohio2015Background
- Jonathan Waters served as Ohio State University (OSU) Marching Band Director (full-time from Feb. 1, 2013) and implemented policies and training addressing hazing, sexual harassment, and substance abuse.
- After a federal OCR investigation announcement and a complaint from a parent, OSU’s Office of Compliance (investigator Chris Glaros) produced a public Glaros Report criticizing band culture and implicating leadership; OSU terminated Waters shortly after providing him the Report.
- Waters alleges he was not given notice or a meaningful pre-termination hearing and that OSU refused a public name-clearing hearing after termination; OSU later offered a public forum by letter but Waters filed suit before following up.
- Waters brought a two-count complaint: (1) § 1983 claims for procedural due process (property and liberty interests) and substantive due process; and (2) a Title IX reverse-sex-discrimination claim alleging male-targeted discipline compared to females in similar situations.
- The court considered a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, excluding most defendant exhibits except those referenced in the complaint and central to claims (employment letter; Glaros Report; Schimmer letter offering a forum).
- The court granted the motion as to all Due Process claims (property, liberty, and substantive) and denied it as to the Title IX reverse-discrimination claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Waters had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment (procedural due process) | University policies/practices and the Band’s academic role created an implied contract or legitimate expectation of continued employment despite an at-will written letter | Employment letter clearly made position unclassified and at-will; prior practices cannot overcome an unambiguous written at-will contract; no statute or formal contract created property interest | Court: No property interest — grant for defendants |
| Whether Waters’ liberty interest (reputation) entitled him to a name-clearing hearing | OSU stigmatized Waters publicly and denied a name-clearing hearing; later offer was constitutionally insufficient | OSU initially declined but later offered a public forum; plaintiff declined/failed to pursue logistics; no factual claim that offer was a functional denial | Court: No actionable denial — grant for defendants |
| Whether defendants’ investigation and termination shock the conscience (substantive due process) | Conduct and reliance on the Glaros Report were egregious and unjust, amounting to conscience-shocking behavior | Sixth Circuit limits "shocks the conscience" outside physical-force context; termination based on investigative report is discretionary, not conscience-shocking | Court: Allegations not conscience-shocking; no physical force or fundamental-right violation — grant for defendants |
| Whether Waters stated a Title IX reverse-sex-discrimination claim | OSU applied harsher discipline to male employees; similarly situated female employees (e.g., cheer coach) were treated more leniently; plea for disparate treatment under Title IX | Defendants argue heightened prima facie proof required and lack of a proper comparator or pretext | Court: Complaint gives fair notice and adequate factual basis under Swierkiewicz/Iqbal — claim survives; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests are created by state law)
- Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461 (Sixth Circuit on name-clearing hearing and faculty employment context)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading standards for discrimination claims — McDonnell Douglas is evidentiary, not pleading, framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence discrimination claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (factual plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility standard to complaints)
- Ludwig v. Bd. of Trs. of Ferris State Univ., 123 F.3d 404 (university employment property-interest principles)
- Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426 (consideration of exhibits attached to motions when central to complaint)