Seattle Attorneys Blog
A Title IX discrimination case by a student accused of a Title IX violation can be difficult to prove. A male student recently had his Title IX claims against his Illinois university dismissed. He was accused of sexual assault and the university imposed interim restrictions pending the investigation. While the proceedings were pending, the university notified him he would be suspended while it investigated another allegation that he had used cocaine in a fraternity house. The university subsequently found him responsible for sexual assault.
He filed suit in federal court in Illinois alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX, as well as breach of contract. The university moved to dismiss. The plaintiff argued the investigation and adjudication were biased against him and the university retaliated when he challenged the bias.
Because it was a motion to dismiss, the court accepted the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true and viewed them in a light most favorable to him.
Title IX Investigation and Proceedings
On April 16, 2016, the plaintiff brought “Jane Roe” and two other people back to his room to drink after leaving a university-hosted event at a local bar. Roe and the plaintiff kissed at the bar and again on the bus. After the others left, the plaintiff believed he had a consensual sexual encounter with Roe. Roe later told her friends what happened and they said it sounded like rape. On April 17, she reported being sexually assaulted to the police. There were discrepancies between the initial police report and what Roe said in a later interview, including whether she consensually kissed the plaintiff and certain details.
The plaintiff told police he had consensual sex with Roe, but could not remember many details because he had been drinking that night.
When the university’s Associate Director of Investigations contacted Roe, Roe told her the police said not to talk to the university until they finished their investigation. She originally did not want to file a Title IX complaint, but later decided to move forward with the complaint. She contacted the Associate Director and asked for the plaintiff to be prohibited from any fraternity functions.
The university imposed interim measures, including prohibiting the plaintiff from participating in extracurricular activities and student organizations. The university also subsequently banned him from living in residence halls or school buildings.
On August 1, Roe emailed university administrators, staff, faculty, and alumni naming the plaintiff as her rapist. The university did not inform the individuals who received the email that there was an official investigation involving the information described in the email nor did it publicly respond.
The plaintiff met with the Associate Director on August 4, but asserted his Fifth Amendment rights because he had been criminally charged. The Associate Director told him she would move forward with the investigation. The plaintiff refused to adopt the statement he made to police. The preliminary report, however, still relied on it. In his rebuttal, the plaintiff argued there was insufficient evidence and pointed out the inconsistencies in Roe’s statements. In the final report, the Associate Director concluded the plaintiff was responsible for sexual assault. Although it acknowledged the inconsistences in Roe’s statements, it adopted her second statement to police as her official story.
The plaintiff appealed the finding. On September 26, he received a notice alleging he violated school rules by using cocaine at the fraternity house while banned from being there. The university temporarily suspended the plaintiff and banned him from campus while it investigated.
The plaintiff decided to withdraw from the university on October 14.
The plaintiff’s appeal was denied and a hearing was scheduled on October 28. Roe attended by videoconference. She did not mention she had been heavily drinking that night and the plaintiff was not allowed to question her directly. He was allowed to submit questions to the hearing officer, but the hearing officer only asked 6 of the 38 questions the plaintiff submitted.
The Associate Director admitted she had not provided the plaintiff or his attorney all of the messages she exchanged with Roe, even though she relied on them for her final report. She also acknowledged inconsistencies between Roe’s statements, but said she found the second statement believable. She did not find the plaintiff’s statement believable.
The hearing officer determined the plaintiff should be expelled. The plaintiff’s appeal of this decision was denied. The plaintiff subsequently received notice the allegation of his violation of the Student Code of Conduct based on cocaine use had been dismissed. The plaintiff was also found not guilty in the criminal case against him.
The Plaintiff’s Lawsuit
The plaintiff sued the university, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX, and the university moved to dismiss his claims.
A plaintiff alleging Title IX discrimination must allege that the school received federal funding, that he was excluded from participation or denied benefits of an educational program, and that the school discriminated against him based on gender. The university only challenged the third element, arguing the plaintiff had not alleged facts supporting a reasonable inference he had been discriminated against based on sex.
Anti-Male Bias
The plaintiff argued the university had acted with anti-male bias. In the Seventh Circuit, the test is whether the alleged facts would raise a plausible inference of sex-based discrimination by the university. Doe v. Purdue Univ.
He argued the university had a systematic anti-male bias with regard to Title IX sexual misconduct complaints arising from the so-called “Dear Colleague” letter. He argued the guidance set forth in the letter by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights disadvantaged male students and favored female accusers and threatened removal of federal funding. He also argued the university was a member of a coalition of postsecondary schools that agreed to fight sexual assault. The university had submitted two films to be screened at the organization’s film festival that showed men as perpetrators and stereotyped men as aggressors. The university had also promoted a “Rape Aggression Defense” program that taught women to defend themselves and men to avoid sexual aggression.
The appeals court noted other male students have alleged the Dear Colleague letter resulted in discrimination against men. The letter and a school’s promotion of sexual assault awareness events and material may be relevant to support the plausibility of a claim of sex discrimination, but are not alone sufficient to state such a claim. The plaintiff must also allege “something more” specific to the facts in his case. This may be irregularities in the process, but they must support a reasonable inference that the university did not follow proper procedures to discriminate based on sex. A “pro-victim bias” alone is not sufficient, because both sexes can be victims.
The court concluded that none of the alleged errors in the investigation and disciplinary process represented “unambiguous deviations” from the university’s documented procedures. The university’s policies and procedures stated its investigations would proceed independent of any criminal proceedings. The court also noted that the criminal prosecution was not resolved for almost six years after he would have graduated, so the university could not have reasonably waited. Additionally, the plaintiff did not cite any policy or procedure that the university violated in adopting his statement to the police over his objection. Although the plaintiff argued the university had not tried to resolve the inconsistencies in Roe’s statements, the Final Report explained why the second statement was credited and stated it was consistent with what she told her friends soon after the incident. The university’s policies and procedures did not provide the accused a right to cross-examine the complainant. Additionally, the policies provide that the hearing officer is the only person who may ask questions and do not require them to ask all of the questions submitted.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the university’s rush to impose sanctions before the preliminary report showed anti-male bias. The court noted the policies and procedures permitted the university to impose those interim measures.
The plaintiff also argued the university prevented him from presenting a defense by not disclosing all of the relevant materials, specifically the text messages between the Associate Director and Roe. He did not, however, provide details on how that information would have helped his defense or cite any policy or procedure that gave him the right to that information. Finally, the court identified no apparent connection between the university’s failure to provide the information and the plaintiff’s sex.
The court concluded that the plaintiff had not shown the university had deviated from its policies and procedures. It could not infer that anti-male bias influenced the university’s determination the plaintiff was responsible for sexual assault. The court determined the plaintiff had not stated a claim for Title IX sex discrimination.
Retaliation
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s retaliation claim, concluding he had not engaged in a protected activity just by defending himself against the sexual assault allegations. Furthermore, there was a credible allegation the plaintiff violated the interim measures against him that gave the university a legitimate reason to investigate the allegations he used cocaine in the fraternity house.
The court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.
Seek Skilled Legal Guidance
If you are facing allegations of sexual misconduct or harassment, you need an experienced Washington Title IX defense attorney to guide you through the investigation and any disciplinary proceedings. Schedule a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC at (206) 622-6562.