Mulla v. University of Minnesota, The

Background

Mulla had attended the University of Minnesota Medical School. In 2017, the Committee on Student Scholastic Standing suspended him after an investigation by the University’s Office for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. In July 2019, the committee readmitted him subject to conditions, including that any further professionalism concern would lead to immediate suspension and a dismissal hearing.

In November 2019, medical students reported concerns about Mulla’s conduct to Michael Kim, the Medical School’s Assistant Dean for Student Affairs. Kim suspended Mulla based on the professionalism condition and referred reports of possible sexual harassment to the University’s equal-opportunity office. That office conducted a Title IX investigation lasting more than 200 days. It found insufficient evidence that Mulla had violated the University’s sexual-harassment policy, so Mulla received no discipline from that investigation. The investigation did, however, make factual findings about unwelcome social-media messages and in-person interactions.

The Medical School’s Committee on Student Scholastic Standing separately held a hearing about whether Mulla’s conduct raised professionalism concerns. Mulla attended with counsel, gave a statement, and witnesses testified. The committee voted 5–2 that his conduct violated professionalism standards and separately voted 5–2 to dismiss him. The committee described the dismissal as academic, based on his inability to demonstrate competencies expected of a physician, rather than as a disciplinary sanction. Mulla had appeal and academic-complaint procedures available to him, but he did not use them.

Mulla’s amended complaint asserted federal claims for Title IX violations, due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment, and First Amendment retaliation. It also asserted state-law claims for negligence, defamation, breach of contract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and estoppel and reliance. The University Defendants—the University, the Regents, and Kim—asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Weston did not join that motion.

Federal Claims Against the University

The court dismissed Mulla’s Title IX claim. An erroneous-outcome Title IX claim requires facts casting doubt on the accuracy of the disciplinary proceeding and facts connecting the allegedly flawed outcome to gender bias. The court found that the Title IX investigation favored Mulla because it did not find sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and imposed no discipline. The court also found that the later committee proceeding was an academic professionalism proceeding, not a Title IX disciplinary proceeding. Mulla did not allege facts showing that the academic decision was inaccurate or motivated by gender bias. The generalized allegations about federal pressure, Title IX resources, and treatment of male students were insufficient. The Title IX claim in Count 1 was dismissed with prejudice.

The court also dismissed Mulla’s claims against the University under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Counts 2 and 4. Section 1983 provides a remedy for certain violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The court held that the University is an arm of the State of Minnesota and therefore has Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from these claims. It also held that a state and its officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” subject to § 1983 liability. The court rejected Mulla’s argument that federal or private funding changed the University’s status or waived its immunity. Counts 2 and 4 were dismissed with prejudice.

The court dismissed Mulla’s First Amendment retaliation claim in Count 10. Although filing a lawsuit can be constitutionally protected activity, Mulla did not plausibly allege that scheduling a dismissal hearing was an adverse action likely to deter an ordinary person from filing a lawsuit. He also did not allege facts supporting a connection between the lawsuit and the hearing. The court noted that the hearing had been contemplated by the conditions of Mulla’s readmission and that Mulla had himself requested a hearing. Count 10 was dismissed with prejudice.

Due Process Claim Against Kim

Mulla alleged in Count 3 that Kim violated his procedural and substantive due process rights by suspending him without adequate notice or an opportunity to respond. The court dismissed the official-capacity portion of the claim seeking money damages because Kim, in that capacity, was not a “person” under § 1983 and sovereign immunity applied.

The court also found that Mulla had not exhausted the University’s available administrative remedies. The court rejected Mulla’s argument that using those procedures would have been futile. It found that the record showed a formal committee hearing, a written decision explaining the reasons for dismissal, and available appeal and academic-complaint procedures.

For substantive due process, which protects against exceptionally arbitrary or conscience-shocking government action, the court found that Mulla had not alleged conduct meeting that demanding standard. Kim had informed Mulla of the professionalism concerns, acted under the conditions of Mulla’s readmission, referred possible harassment reports for investigation, and sent an email asking students to report potentially inappropriate communications. The court found that the documents attached to the complaint contradicted Mulla’s allegations that he received no notice or opportunity to respond.

For procedural due process, the court treated the dismissal as academic. Academic dismissals require notice and a careful, deliberate decision, but not necessarily a formal hearing. Mulla received notice, participated in a formal hearing with counsel, presented a statement, and had an opportunity to address the evidence. The committee issued a seven-page decision and explained appeal options. The court also noted that Mulla did not allege that Kim participated in the committee’s hearing or dismissal decision. The court therefore dismissed both the substantive and procedural due process claims in Count 3 with prejudice and held that Kim was entitled to qualified immunity because Mulla had not alleged a constitutional violation.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same lawsuit—over the remaining claims. The court dismissed the state-law claims against the University, Kim, and Weston without prejudice. It did not decide the University’s separate sovereign-immunity arguments concerning those state-law claims.

The order granted the University Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 were dismissed with prejudice, while Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were dismissed without prejudice.