Doe v. University of St. Thomas

Background

John Doe sued the University of St. Thomas (UST), a private university, based on UST’s investigation of a sexual-misconduct complaint made against him. The events occurred in December 2015, when Doe was a freshman. UST’s formal process allowed both the complainant and respondent to identify witnesses, provide documents and other evidence, submit questions for witnesses, respond to the allegations, and appeal the result.

UST investigated the complaint, interviewed Doe and the complainant twice, interviewed other witnesses, reviewed security footage and other evidence, and found Doe responsible for non-consensual sexual intercourse. UST suspended him for three semesters. After Doe appealed, an appeal board recommended denying the appeal, and the appeal officer upheld the original determination.

Doe’s amended complaint originally asserted six claims: three claims under Title IX, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The Court had previously dismissed the first five claims. The only remaining claim was negligence, and UST moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a jury’s decision and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Negligence Standard

Under Minnesota law, negligence requires proof that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached that duty, caused the plaintiff’s injury, and proximately caused the injury through that breach.

The Court held that UST owed Doe a duty of reasonable care. It reasoned that Minnesota decisions recognize common-law limits on private universities’ disciplinary decisions and that the relationship between a university and its students supports requiring reasonable care before imposing discipline with potentially serious consequences. The Court rejected UST’s proposed rule limiting liability to arbitrary conduct and rejected Doe’s argument that reasonable care required strict adherence to every provision of UST’s policy.

The Court explained that UST’s policies were relevant evidence but did not themselves establish the complete standard of care. A university could potentially breach its duty even without violating its written policy, while a policy violation would not automatically establish negligence.

Alleged Bias

Doe argued that UST’s training materials showed bias against men accused of sexual assault. He pointed to gender-related language, training about how sexual-assault victims typically behave, and statistics concerning campus sexual assaults and false reports.

The Court concluded that these materials did not show actual bias in Doe’s case. University administrators were entitled to a presumption of honesty and integrity unless actual bias was proven, and Doe offered no facts connecting the training to a predetermined result or bias by the people involved in his adjudication. The Court therefore rejected bias as proof of a breach of UST’s duty of reasonable care.

Alleged Procedural Problems

Doe also argued that UST’s process was unfair and that several procedural problems, considered together, amounted to a breach. The Court found that UST’s policy did not promise Doe a trial-like defense or control over the investigation. Instead, the policy gave the factfinders responsibility for conducting the investigation while providing both parties opportunities to identify witnesses and evidence, propose questions, and respond to the allegations. The Court found that UST provided those opportunities.

The Court also rejected Doe’s claims that UST denied him access to the factfinders’ written findings or heavily redacted the materials. Doe could view the report, although he or his attorney had to come to campus, and the Court found that the redactions were not as extensive as Doe alleged.

The Court did find that UST acted improperly on two occasions: the original decision-maker sent a draft disposition letter to the future appeal officer for suggestions, and later contacted that officer about whether Doe had appealed and stated that she saw no applicable appeal grounds. The Court said this contact created concerns and ideally the two decision levels would have been completely separate. But because a five-member appeal board with no role in the original decision considered the appeal and recommended denying it, the Court found the contact likely harmless and insufficient to establish a breach.

Disposition

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Doe, the Court held that no reasonable jury could find that UST breached its duty of reasonable care. The Court therefore granted UST’s motion for summary judgment and ordered judgment entered for UST on Doe’s negligence claim.

UST also argued that summary judgment was appropriate because Doe had not identified an expert witness. The Court did not decide that issue because it granted summary judgment based on the absence of evidence of breach. The Court noted, however, that it would likely find expert testimony unnecessary for the fairness and impartiality questions presented here.