Wells v. Xavier University
7 F. Supp. 3d 746
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Wells, former Xavier University men's basketball player (2011-2012), was allegedly falsely accused of sexual assault by a resident advisor in July 2012.
- OCR investigated Xavier in Jan 2012 and Feb 2012 for handling sexual assault cases; later an OCR agreement established training and reporting programs.
- Wells alleges he consensually engaged in sexual activity with the advisor; he was portrayed as having committed a serious offense.
- Xavier Conduct Board (UCB) held a hearing on Aug 2, 2012 (date in opinion shows 20121 due to typographical error) and expelled Wells for a “serious violation.”
- Wells brought eleven claims including breach of contract, various libel theories, vacatur of an arbitration decision, Title IX claims, and negligence; Xavier and its president Graham moved to dismiss several claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, allowing several libel and Title IX claims to proceed while dismissing vacatur claims as time-barred and ruling Graham cannot be held liable in his individual capacity for Title IX claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libel claims survive despite truth challenge | Wells alleges the statement implying a serious violation was untruthful and damaged his reputation. | Statement reflected an outcome of the UCB process and was not a false statement. | Libel claims survive 12(b)(6) scrutiny; plausibility shown for untruth and reputational harm. |
| Vacatur claims time-barred | Claims should not be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. | Vacatur claims are barred by the statute of limitations. | Vacatur claims dismissed as time-barred. |
| Title IX against Xavier and Graham | Erroneous outcome and deliberate indifference theories against Xavier and Graham are viable. | Title IX claims do not reach individual liability; only institutional liability for Graham is possible. | Title IX claims against Graham dismissed in his individual capacity; Title IX against Xavier survives; deliberate indifference theory discussed but not resolved to dismissal. |
| Deliberate indifference theory under Title IX | Xavier ignored warnings and allowed a defective hearing to proceed to advance its goals. | Must show actual notice and failure to remedy; Doe v. University of the South cited as comparison. | Deliberate indifference theory presented with sufficient factual allegations to proceed. |
| Overall dismissal posture | Plaintiff seeks to maintain broader set of claims. | Many claims are subject to dismissal or narrowed. | Court retains libel and Title IX claims; dismisses vacatur and holds Graham not liable personally for Title IX. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc., 236 F.3d 299 (6th Cir.2000) (elements of libel claim; defamation elements)
- Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434 (6th Cir.1988) (pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; factual allegations required)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard; pleading requirements)
- Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir.1994) (erroneous outcome theory under Title IX)
- Mallory v. Ohio University, 76 Fed.Appx. 634 (6th Cir.2003) (deliberate indifference standard under Title IX)
- Doe v. University of the South, 687 F.Supp.2d 744 (E.D.Tenn.2009) (comparison on Title IX deliberate indifference)
- Petrone v. Cleveland State University, 993 F.Supp. 1119 (N.D.Ohio 1998) (individual liability concepts under Title IX)
- Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir.1996) (individual liability discussion in Title IX context)
- Vance v. Spencer County Public Sch. Dist., 231 F.3d 253 (6th Cir.2000) (deliberate indifference framework)