Doe v. Regents of the University of Minnesota

Background

Jane Doe reported to the Minneapolis Police Department and the University of Minnesota’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action that male football players had engaged in or watched nonconsensual sexual acts. Tina Marisam investigated for the University. The investigation concluded that several students probably violated the University’s Student Conduct Code, and the University offered sanctions ranging from no sanction to expulsion.

Several students sought formal hearings instead. After the hearing, some were found responsible and disciplined, while others were found not responsible. Some students appealed to the University Provost, but none filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the Regents of the University of Minnesota, Eric Kaler, and Tina Marisam. The amended complaint asserted nine counts: sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX; racial discrimination under Title VI; equal-protection and due-process violations; defamation; intentional infliction of emotional distress; breach of contract; tortious interference with contract; and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Title IX claims

The court dismissed the Title IX sex-discrimination and retaliation claims. It rejected the plaintiffs’ “archaic assumptions” theory because they did not allege that they were denied equal athletic opportunities. It also found that the allegations supporting erroneous-outcome, selective-enforcement, and deliberate-indifference theories did not plausibly show that gender bias motivated the disciplinary process. The court stated that an alleged investigative imbalance favoring a complainant over accused students is not necessarily bias against male students, and that the plaintiffs had not identified a similarly situated female student who faced similar disciplinary charges and received more favorable treatment.

The retaliation theory also failed. The plaintiffs argued that the University retaliated after they requested formal hearings and publicly criticized the University’s handling of the matter. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that they complained about sex discrimination, as required for the asserted Title IX retaliation claim.

Title VI and equal-protection claims

The court dismissed the Title VI racial-discrimination claim because the plaintiffs did not identify a comparator who was similarly situated in all relevant respects. The proposed comparisons included University employees, students accused of different conduct, Jane Doe, and a white football player who was allegedly present during the incident. The court found those comparisons insufficient to plausibly show intentional racial discrimination.

For the same general reason, the court dismissed the equal-protection claim. The plaintiffs did not adequately allege that similarly situated female or non-African American students accused of similar conduct were treated more favorably.

Due-process claims

The court dismissed the due-process claims asserted by JDs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 because they had not exhausted available state remedies. JDs 2, 4, and 5 did not appeal to the University Provost. Although JD1 appealed, none of those plaintiffs, including JD10, petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari. The court held that the plaintiffs could not avoid exhaustion by relying on alleged pre-hearing deprivations, including restrictions involving football activities, transcripts, or class registration.

The court separately held that JDs 7 through 11, who were either not charged with violating the Code or were ultimately found not responsible for sexual misconduct, did not plausibly allege deprivation of the asserted interests in attending college, keeping scholarships, or playing football. Because of that ruling, the court did not decide whether Kaler and Marisam would have qualified for qualified immunity.

Other claims

The court dismissed the defamation claim against Kaler because his statements were absolutely privileged. It found that he made the statements as University president, on the University’s behalf, while addressing a matter of significant public concern. The court also stated that, even without the privilege, the statements were nonactionable opinions or true.

The intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim failed because the allegations that Kaler and Marisam distributed or directed the leaking of the investigation report were conclusory and unsupported. The plaintiffs also did not adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress.

The court dismissed the breach-of-contract and negligence claims against the University under the Eleventh Amendment because the University is an instrumentality of the State of Minnesota and the plaintiffs did not show a waiver of immunity or congressional abrogation. Finally, it dismissed the tortious-interference claim against Kaler and Marisam because the allegations that they acted outside their employment duties were conclusory, while the alleged conduct appeared to fall within the scope of their University employment.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.