Doe v. Regents of the University of Minnesota

Background

After a 2016 incident involving a reporting student and multiple University of Minnesota football players, the University investigated allegations of nonconsensual sexual conduct and related misconduct. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action concluded that some accused students likely violated the Student Conduct Code. A Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee later found that John Does 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 committed various violations. Some received expulsions, one received a one-year suspension, and John Doe 10’s sanction was later changed to probation on appeal. The panel found insufficient evidence against John Does 7, 8, 9, and 11, and the investigation did not find that John Doe 6 violated the Code.

The students initially asserted nine claims against the University and individual officials. The court had dismissed all claims except their Title IX sex-discrimination claim. The students alleged that the University targeted and unfairly punished them because they were male. The University moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial.

Arguments and Analysis

To proceed with their Title IX claim, the students needed evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the University disciplined them because of their sex. They relied on several categories of evidence, including the decision not to bring criminal charges, alleged manipulation during interviews, the reporting student’s role in the investigation, the University’s treatment of a female witness, alleged investigator and hearing-panel bias, University statements, and earlier investigations involving football players.

The court concluded that each category was either unsupported by the record or did not show sex discrimination. The court explained that the decision not to bring criminal charges did not establish that the students were innocent or that the University could not conduct its own investigation under a different standard and policy. It also found no evidence that the investigator refused to interview the female witness; the record showed that she did not respond to two interview requests, and her later affidavit was considered by the hearing panel.

The court found insufficient evidence that the investigator used discriminatory tactics, that the reporting student helped draft the report, or that the hearing panel was instructed to favor the University’s investigators. It also found no record support for the students’ assertions about coercion, biased University statements, or a plan based on earlier football-player investigations. The court emphasized that unsupported allegations and disagreements about the weight of evidence were not enough to defeat summary judgment.

Ruling

Judge Donovan W. Frank granted the University’s motion for summary judgment. The order states that the students’ Title IX claim against the University was dismissed with prejudice, and it directed that judgment be entered accordingly.