Seattle Attorneys Blog
A male student’s Title IX claim against his university arising from a Title IX investigation and disciplinary action against him recently survived a motion to dismiss in a New Jersey federal court. According to the court’s unpublished opinion, the plaintiff and his former girlfriend were students in the same program at a public university in New Jersey. In fall 2022, she told several classmates and three faculty members that he had sexually assaulted and harassed her. The plaintiff alleged that he had told two professors she was spreading false rumors.
Title IX Allegations
In September 2022, a professor filed a complaint, alleging the plaintiff had engaged in “unwanted and inappropriate touching, . . . making unwanted advances towards students, and using abusive language.”
The plaintiff subsequently took a leave of absence and intended to return on October 17. On October 16, a professor informed some students via email that the plaintiff would be back the next day. The plaintiff alleged his former girlfriend shared the email with the whole class and he started getting threats from other students.
The plaintiff and his parents met with the school to discuss the allegations and the other students’ behavior toward him. He alleged the Theater Department Chair “urged” him to take a leave of absence for his own safety.
A male student filed a Title IX complaint against the plaintiff based on the former girlfriend’s allegations. Another female student sought and obtained a no-contact order against him. The Title IX Coordinator filed a Title IX complaint on behalf of the former girlfriend.
The plaintiff alleged that he told the Title IX investigators during an interview that the ex-girlfriend had physically assaulted him at a party. The final investigation report charged the plaintiff with Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, and Stalking under the Title IX policy, and Relationship Violence and Stalking under the code of student conduct.
Disciplinary Proceedings
The university held a hearing with an outside attorney acting as the third-party decision-maker. The decision-maker determined the plaintiff was not responsible for Domestic Violence, Relationship Violence, or Non-Title-IX Stalking. She found he was responsible for Dating Violence and Stalking under the Title IX policy. For the stalking finding, she found the plaintiff tried to eavesdrop on the ex-girlfriend in her dorm room and left the building at the same time she did to meet her. She also found the plaintiff had twice followed the ex-girlfriend on a bus and also onto an elevator. The finding of Dating Violence was based on an incident in which he allegedly squeezed the back of her neck and placed pressure on it.
The plaintiff was suspended for two years. He appealed, but the suspension was upheld.
Plaintiff’s Lawsuit
The plaintiff filed suit against the university, alleging anti-male bias affected the Title IX process. He argued the university selectively enforced Title IX policies against him and failed to investigate his allegations against the ex-girlfriend. He also argued the university reached an erroneous decision. Furthermore, he argued there was pressure on the university to respond aggressively to complaints by female students.
The university moved to dismiss the case.
External Pressure
The district court noted the Third Circuit has acknowledged that the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter from the Department of Education had led to schools taking a “more rigorous approach” to allegations of sexual misconduct, but that pressure alone is not sufficient to state a claim of bias. The plaintiff also argued the university had created a “comprehensive action plan” addressing sexual and dating violence.
The plaintiff argued the ex-girlfriend sharing false rumors about him was stalking under the university’s Title IX policy. He alleged he told two professors the rumors were not true. He also claimed one of the professors knew he had been threatened with physical violence because of the rumors. The professors had not reported it, however. He also alleged that the department chair told him it might not be safe for him to come back to campus because of the threats, but also did not make a Title IX report.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff had not reported the ex-girlfriend had been stalking him or filed a formal complaint to initiate an investigation. The defendant also argued the alleged conduct was not gender-based harassment.
Selective Investigation and Enforcement
The plaintiff also alleged the university did not report or investigate his allegations the ex-girlfriend had assaulted him. He claimed he had informed the Title IX investigators she had assaulted him at a party.
The university argued that the investigators were required under the policy to notify the complainant about supportive measures and the option to file a formal complaint, but were not required to report the conduct to the Title IX Coordinator.
The court noted the university’s argument was not consistent with Third Circuit precedent in similar case. The court acknowledged there may be plausible explanations other than anti-male bias for the difference in how the allegations were treated, but in deciding a motion to dismiss, the complaint had to be construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had alleged he reported a violation and the university had not investigated it. The court concluded that he alleged sufficient facts to plausibly plead sex had been a motivating factor in the enforcement of the policy.
Erroneous Outcome
The plaintiff also alleged erroneous outcome. He alleged the decision-maker had made multiple improper rulings. He alleged she prohibited him from asking a witness about their romantic relationship together after the ex-girlfriend’s allegations, let witnesses submit written supplemental statements, and let the ex-girlfriend introduce evidence about his medical history and mental health. He also argued that she decided inconsistencies in the ex-girlfriend’s favor, but acknowledged some instances where she found the ex-girlfriend’s claims were not credible.
The court concluded the plaintiff alleged facts supporting a plausible inference the decision-maker had been influenced by anti-male bias. The plaintiff argued that the finding the ex-girlfriend reasonably feared for her safety following an incident in January 2022 was not consistent with her continuing her relationship for four more months. The plaintiff also argued the decision-maker found he followed the ex-girlfriend onto a bus when they both lived in the same building and he had explained he was just “going home.”
The court found the plaintiff had alleged sufficient procedural flaws to raise a plausible inference of sex-based discrimination. The court found he had raised a plausible inference sex had been a motivating factor in the disciplinary process and his suspension. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss.
Seek Legal Counsel
This case shows how Title IX allegations can have affects beyond academic matters and negatively affect a student’s social life and even their safety. If sexual misconduct allegations have been made about you at your school, you should seek the guidance of an experienced Washington Title IX defense attorney. Schedule a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC, by calling (206) 622-6562.