Seattle Attorneys Blog
Sometimes when a student has suffered severe disciplinary action following an unfair Title IX investigation and disciplinary proceeding, they may pursue their own Title IX claim against the school. A federal court in Arizona recently considered a motion to dismiss a male student’s Title IX, § 1983, and state law claims after he was suspended for sexual misconduct.
The plaintiff, “John Doe,” and “Jane Roe” each filed student conduct complaints against each other following a sexual encounter on an Arizona university campus. Jane filed a Title IX complaint against John and he was found responsible for sexual misconduct. He sued the university against the university’s Board of Regents and several individual defendants alleging violation of Title IX, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The defendants argued the plaintiff had not established a plausible inference of sex-based discrimination.
A plaintiff alleging a Title IX claim must allege they were excluded from participating in, denied the benefits of or discriminated against under an educational program or activity on the basis of sex at a school receiving federal funding. At the motion to dismiss stage, the plaintiff must only allege sufficient facts to state a claim that is facially plausible, but sex discrimination does not have to be the only plausible explanation.
In previous cases, the Ninth Circuit has considered “allegations of background indicia of sex discrimination,” including pressure on the university regarding how it handled sexual misconduct complaints and “a pattern of gender-based decisionmaking,” The court then considers the specific allegations regarding the disciplinary action against the plaintiff. Schwake v. Arizona Bd. of Regents.
The plaintiff alleged the defendants had a history of investigation by the Department of Education regarding its Title IX investigations, including two complaints and investigations that were “contemporaneous” with the incident. He also alleged that most of the sexual misconduct reports in 2023 were allegations by females against males. He also alleged that the university had a history of students alleging they had not sufficiently addressed sexual misconduct when it was reported. Furthermore, he alleged there had been ongoing protests and that the university had given in to demands by “female alleged victims and survivors.”
The court noted that the plaintiff’s allegations were similar to those in Schwake, in which the Ninth Circuit held the plaintiff had established background indicia of sex discrimination. The district court in this case therefore also found that the plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently established a background indicia of sex discrimination.
The defendants argued the plaintiff had not alleged specific facts showing sex discrimination.
The plaintiff alleged he and Jane Roe each filed conduct complaints against each other. He further alleged the university closed the complaint against him quickly because it realized it fell under Title IX, but his conduct complaint against her, based on the same type of conduct, was not closed. He alleged Jane was given “clear instructions” to file a Title IX complaint, but his conduct complaint was investigated for “physical harm” and “harassment” instead of sexual misconduct. He alleged this process denied him the procedural protection afforded under Title IX. He argued his complaint was treated differently solely due to sex.
The plaintiff alleged an initial hearing found him not responsible for sexual misconduct, but Jane appealed and informed the university she would pursue both Title IX and Clery Act claims—which carry a potential fine of $69,733 per violation. . .” He alleged she also threatened to file complaints with the Department of Education. The appeal decision maker allowed a rehearing due to procedural irregularities. The plaintiff alleged the decision maker was biased toward female complainants. He also alleged he did not have an opportunity to object. The plaintiff was found not responsible again after the rehearing. He alleged that the university then allowed Jane another appeal, which was reviewed by the same decision maker. He alleged he did not have an opportunity to object to the decision maker. He further alleged the decision maker ignored the investigator’s findings and found the plaintiff had committed sexual misconduct. He alleged he was given a suspension for one year, with no meaningful opportunity to respond to the appeals.
The district court found the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged different treatment of his complaint as compared to Jane’s, a similarly-situated female complainant. The court found his allegations were sufficient to support an inference there had been gender bias. He had also alleged the appeal decision-maker ignored evidence that was favorable to him, did not permit him to object to her review or findings, and reversed two prior findings he was not responsible.
The plaintiff’s allegations, if taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, were consistent with his allegations male respondents were treated differently in the university’s sexual misconduct disciplinary proceedings. The court determined the plaintiff had plausibly alleged a Title IX claim and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the Title IX claim.
The court did, however, dismiss the plaintiff’s state law claims and his § 1983 claim against the individual defendants as it related to alleged due process violations, but did not dismiss the § 1983 claim with regard to the alleged equal protection violations.
In this case, the contemporaneous complaints regarding the same incident helped support the plaintiff’s allegations of sex-based discrimination so that he can proceed with his case. If you have been accused of sexual misconduct at school, an experienced Washington Title IX defense attorney can help protect your rights during the investigation and disciplinary process. Schedule a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC, by calling (206) 622-6562.