Doe v. White

Background

Jane Doe was enrolled in a two-year master’s program in Depth Psychology at Sonoma State University beginning in September 2016. After classmates complained about her conduct during an “Authentic Movement” classroom exercise, the university began a Title IX investigation on May 18, 2017. Title IX is a federal law barring sex discrimination in education, including sexual harassment.

Doe alleged that the investigation effectively prevented her from attending classes for 14 months. She alleged that officials did not give her a hearing before imposing that “interim remedy,” did not explain the evidence against her, and did not give her a meaningful opportunity to respond. The investigation ultimately found that she was not responsible for sexual harassment, and the complainants’ appeal was denied.

Doe sued White and the other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state officials. She alleged violations of her due-process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. The defendants were sued in their individual capacities.

Rulings on the Exhaustion Argument

The defendants argued that Doe had to seek state-court review through California writ proceedings before filing her federal claim. The court rejected that argument. It held that Doe was not challenging the university’s final finding that she was innocent, so the state procedure for reviewing final administrative decisions did not apply. The court also found no authority requiring a § 1983 plaintiff to file the other type of state writ before seeking federal relief.

The court therefore denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is protection from damages for government officials unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and a right that was clearly established when the officials acted. A right is clearly established when existing precedent makes the legal question beyond reasonable debate.

The court concluded that Doe had not shown a clearly established property or liberty interest in continued enrollment or class attendance at a public institution of higher education under these circumstances. The Supreme Court had assumed, but had not decided, whether higher-education students possess such an interest. The Ninth Circuit likewise had not squarely addressed the issue, and decisions from other courts were divided or based on different state laws and contractual arrangements.

Because the law was unsettled, the court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court stated that Doe’s allegations raised serious questions about the process she received, including the 14-month exclusion from class, but it did not decide whether the defendants actually violated her due-process rights.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds. The order granted the motion without leave to amend the complaint. Thus, the court rejected the exhaustion defense but ended the lawsuit on qualified-immunity grounds without reaching the ultimate question whether Doe was denied constitutionally adequate procedures.