Xiaolu "Peter" Yu v. Vassar College, 97 F. Supp. 3d 448

Yu, a Chinese citizen, attended Vassar College and was expelled in March 2013 after a Title IX investigation and IVP hearing.
A Complainant reported alleged sexual misconduct by Yu on February 18, 2013, triggering an investigation led by Title IX investigator Horowitz.
The College Regulations charged Yu with violations of sections 5.05 (sexual misconduct) and 20.2 (non-consensual intercourse); sanctions ranged from probation to expulsion.
Yu’s account differs from Complainant’s; key evidence includes Facebook messages, witness observations of intoxication, and contemporaneous testimony from witnesses.
The IVP found Yu responsible and recommended expulsion; Yu appealed, and the Appeal Committee upheld the IVP decision; Yu filed suit seeking relief on multiple state and federal claims.
Vassar moved for summary judgment; the court granted, concluding no Title IX discriminatory bias or procedural violation proven, and dismissing remaining claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IVP's outcome was erroneous due to gender bias	Yu argues IVP credibility determinations were biased against him as a male.	Vassar contends the panel’s credibility assessments were based on evidence, not gender bias.	No genuine dispute; no evidence of gender-biased erroneous outcome.
Whether Yu shows Title IX discrimination through selective enforcement	Yu claims punishment was harsher due to his gender and points to Facebook messages as exculpatory.	Vassar argues neutral, gender-neutral policy applied; no comparably situated female defendant shown.	Insufficient evidence of selective enforcement; no Title IX violation proved.
Whether Vassar complied with procedural due process (private university context)	Yu alleges lack of impartial tribunal, rushed process, and limited cross-examination undermining due process.	Vassar asserts private-university procedures and OCR guidance were followed; no due process violation shown.	No due process violation; procedures complied and cross-examination and notices were adequate.
Whether state-law claims (breach of contract, good faith, GBL 349, etc.) survive	Yu asserts contract/GBL claims based on procedural flaws and misrepresentations.	Vassar argues no breach, misrepresentation, or deceptive practice; regulatory compliance defeats claims.	All state-law claims are dismissed as duplicative or unsupported.

Doe v. Univ. of the South, 687 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Tenn. 2009) (limited scope of federal review of University disciplinary proceedings)
Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (two categories of Title IX claims: erroneous outcome and selective enforcement)
Mallory v. Ohio Univ., 76 Fed. Appx. 634 (6th Cir. 2003) (pattern of decision-making; antiquated gender notions not shown)
Rensselaer S’y of Eng’rs v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 689 N.Y.S.2d 292 (3d Dep’t 1999) (private university disciplinary due process; non-state actor)
Brown v. Castleton State Coll., 663 F. Supp. 2d 392 (D. Vt. 2009) (due process and Title IX procedural considerations in campus discipline)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting)