355 F. Supp. 3d 646
M.D. Tenn.2018Background
- Student ("Z.J.") was accused by a fellow student ("A.H.") of non‑consensual sexual contact, dating violence, and attempted non‑consensual intercourse following an incident after a St. Patrick’s Day event; medical, photographic, police, and surveillance evidence were gathered.
- Vanderbilt’s EAD (Title IX office) investigated, produced a preliminary and a detailed final report applying the preponderance standard, found A.H. more credible, and concluded Z.J. violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy.
- Director of Student Accountability imposed expulsion; three‑person appellate panel affirmed. Z.J. was expelled shortly before graduation and faced financial and career consequences.
- Z.J. sued Vanderbilt in state court asserting Title IX (multiple theories), Clery Act, declaratory relief, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, defamation, negligence (including negligence per se), IIED, unjust enrichment, and related claims; case removed to federal court.
- Vanderbilt moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court considered the Handbook and EAD Final Report (both integral documents) and dismissed all claims for failure to state plausible causes of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX — Erroneous outcome / selective enforcement / deliberate indifference / hostile environment / archaic assumptions | Z.J. contends Vanderbilt’s process was biased by gender, public pressure, and resulted in an erroneous outcome; seeks damages and injunctive relief. | Vanderbilt argues Z.J. fails to plead the particularized facts/statistics/statements needed to show gender bias or sexual‑harassment‑style deliberate indifference. | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege required causal nexus/statistical or anecdotal evidence for erroneous outcome or selective enforcement; hostile‑environment and deliberate‑indifference theories inadequate because no systemic harassment alleged; archaic‑assumptions inapplicable outside athletics. |
| Breach of contract / covenant of good faith & fair dealing / promissory estoppel | Z.J. alleges Handbook/Sexual Misconduct Policy created enforceable procedural promises that Vanderbilt breached (investigation, evidence handling, witness interviews, disclosure, impartiality). | Vanderbilt contends the Handbook affords broad discretion, contains no detailed procedural mandates Z.J. invokes, and any duties arise from contract so remedies are contractual not tort/promissory estoppel. | Dismissed: Handbook/policy do not impose the specific mandatory procedures alleged; discretionary investigatory choices and credibility assessments are not contractual breaches; promissory estoppel fails where contract governs and no separate promise expanded terms. |
| State torts — IIED, defamation, negligence, unjust enrichment, negligence per se (Clery/Title IX) | Z.J. claims emotional distress from process, reputational harm from alleged publications, negligence in handling investigation, and unjust retention of tuition; alleges statutory duties under Title IX/Clery. | Vanderbilt argues Tennessee sets a high bar for IIED; intra‑corporate communications and lack of identified publications defeat defamation; negligence claims merely repackage contract claims; Clery has no private right; Title IX not a negligence per se basis. | Dismissed: IIED not outrageous as a matter of law; defamation inadequately pled (no specific third‑party publication identified and intra‑corporate communications excluded); negligence claims barred where duties arise from contract; Clery Act and Title IX cannot support negligence per se/private Clery claim. |
| Declaratory relief | Z.J. seeks declarations re: Title IX and Clery compliance and related injunctive relief (degree, expungement). | Vanderbilt: underlying substantive claims fail; declaratory relief therefore unnecessary. | Dismissed: no justiciable controversy remains once substantive claims dismissed; prudential factors counsel against issuing declaratory relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: allegations must state a plausible claim).
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard and requirement to nudge claims across the line from conceivable to plausible).
- Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (adopts Yusuf framework for Title IX disciplinary‑proceeding claims and distinguishes hostile‑environment, deliberate‑indifference, erroneous‑outcome, selective‑enforcement, and archaic‑assumptions theories).
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (framework for Title IX claims challenging campus disciplinary outcomes).
- Baum v. Univ. of Michigan (Doe v. Baum), 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) (consideration of external pressure and procedural context in assessing plausibility of gender‑bias Title IX claims).
- Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (deliberate‑indifference standard where school acts on student‑on‑student sexual harassment that deprives access to educational benefits).