Doe v. Saint John's University, Minnesota

Background

John Doe, a full-time student at Saint John’s University, Minnesota, participated in the University’s study-abroad program in France during the fall 2019 semester. Doe alleged that he drank heavily on November 6, 2019, later lost awareness of his actions, and next remembered waking in Jane Roe’s residence-hall room. Roe reported that Doe engaged in unwelcome sexual contact with her during the late hours of November 6 or early hours of November 7.

The University investigated the allegations. Doe and Roe had opportunities to review and comment on the investigation reports, and an Adjudication Panel considered the matter without holding a hearing. On May 6, 2020, the Panel found Doe responsible for sexual assault under the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy. The University suspended Doe and barred him from campus until December 31, 2020, or until Roe graduated, whichever was later. University appeal officers upheld the decision.

Doe sued the University. Count I alleged that the University violated Title IX by using a flawed and gender-biased process. Count II alleged negligence based on the University’s process and Doe’s suspension. The University moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Title IX claim

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support a claim for relief.

The court held that Doe did not plausibly allege that the University disciplined him because of his sex. First, the court rejected Doe’s reliance on alleged evidentiary weaknesses. Under the University’s policy, silence, failure to object, or failure to resist did not by itself establish consent, and the person initiating sexual contact had responsibility for obtaining consent. Doe had an opportunity to present evidence that Roe consented but failed to do so.

Second, the court concluded that Doe’s alleged procedural flaws did not support a Title IX claim. Doe alleged that the investigator was not properly trained or unbiased, that he was denied a hearing, that he could not conduct his own investigation or contact witnesses, that the University presumed his guilt, and that it improperly placed the burden of proof on him. But he did not explain how those alleged flaws caused the result, how the result would have changed without them, whether they violated the law or the University’s policies, or whether they occurred because of his sex.

Third, the court found that Doe’s allegations of institutional bias were conclusory. He did not identify statements by Panel members or University officials supporting an inference of sex discrimination. Fourth, the court rejected Doe’s reliance on alleged statistics showing that accused students were usually male and accusing students were usually female. The court held that this disparity did not, by itself, support a reasonable inference that the University discriminated against male students.

Finally, the court held that Doe’s general allegations about pressure from federal agencies, possible civil lawsuits, and efforts to change campus sexual-assault culture did not provide specific facts showing sex bias. The court also rejected Doe’s reliance on Title IX regulations issued in 2020 because they took effect after his suspension and did not apply retroactively.

Negligence claim

The court explained that Minnesota law allows liability for a private university’s expulsion decision when the decision is arbitrary and capricious. Relying on an Eighth Circuit prediction about Minnesota law, the court applied that standard to Doe’s negligence claim involving his suspension for nonacademic misconduct.

The court held that Doe did not plausibly allege that the University’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Doe alleged that the University’s procedures had evidentiary weaknesses, reflected gender bias, failed to presume his innocence, and were not implemented fairly. The court viewed those allegations as dissatisfaction with the procedures rather than an allegation that the University failed to follow its own policies.

The court also rejected Doe’s argument that he lacked an opportunity to be heard. Although he did not receive a hearing, he could submit additional evidence, identify witnesses, review and respond to the investigation report, rebut Roe’s response, and appeal the Panel’s decision. The Panel issued a detailed report explaining its decision, and the appeal decision also explained the reasons for upholding it.

Disposition

The court granted the University’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Doe’s complaint without prejudice, meaning the order did not state that refiling was barred. The order did not decide whether Doe actually committed sexual assault; it decided that the complaint did not plausibly state either a Title IX claim or a negligence claim.