Doe v. The Trustee of Columbia University in The City of New York

Background

Jane Doe, representing herself, sued The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Kevin Pitt, Alyssa Anzalone-Newman, and Kristin Collado. She alleged that a Columbia student sexually assaulted her on January 8, 2019, and that the defendants later violated Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.

Doe challenged Columbia’s handling of her report in three main ways. First, she argued that Columbia should have applied its 2020 gender-based misconduct policy instead of its 2019 policy. Second, she alleged that Columbia acted with deliberate indifference by investigating her allegations improperly. Third, she claimed that the university reached an erroneous outcome by recommending that the other student be found not responsible for sexual assault.

Columbia investigated Doe’s report under the 2019 policy. The investigators reviewed interviews, witness statements, electronic communications, medical and counseling records, and other materials. They recommended that the other student not be found responsible for sexual assault and that Doe not be found responsible for stalking. After a hearing that Doe did not attend, the hearing panel affirmed those findings. Doe was told she could appeal but did not file an appeal.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim; it does not ordinarily decide whether the plaintiff will ultimately win. The court considered documents attached to or incorporated into Doe’s amended complaint, including Columbia’s policies and portions of the investigative report.

Claims Against Individual Defendants

The court dismissed the Title IX claims against Pitt, Anzalone-Newman, and Collado because Title IX does not authorize claims against individual school officials, teachers, or other individuals who do not personally receive federal education funding.

Use of the 2019 Policy

The court rejected Doe’s claim that Columbia violated Title IX by using the 2019 policy. The Department of Education’s 2020 Title IX rules took effect on August 14, 2020, and were not retroactive. Because the alleged sexual assault occurred in January 2019, the court held that Columbia acted consistently with the Department of Education’s rules by applying the 2019 policy.

The court also held that Doe did not allege that gender played any role in Columbia’s choice of policy. Because sex-based discrimination is required for a Title IX claim, the court dismissed this claim.

Deliberate Indifference

A school may be liable under Title IX for deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment when the harassment is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive enough to deprive the student of educational opportunities or benefits, and the school’s response is clearly unreasonable in light of what it knew.

The court held that Doe did not allege that the sexual assault affected her education or deprived her of educational opportunities or benefits. Her allegations of fear, depression, anxiety, shame, and self-blame did not explain how her education was affected.

The court also held that Doe did not plausibly allege that Columbia’s response was clearly unreasonable. Columbia had a detailed misconduct policy, investigated the allegations, reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties, and applied the procedures in that policy. The court concluded that Doe’s disagreement with the investigation, the evidence considered, the use of experts, the lack of cross-examination, and the outcome did not establish deliberate indifference. The court dismissed this claim.

Erroneous Outcome

An erroneous-outcome claim generally alleges that a disciplinary proceeding reached the wrong result and that gender bias caused the error. The court questioned whether this type of claim was available to Doe because she was not found responsible for misconduct. The court nevertheless considered the claim and held that Doe had not adequately pleaded it.

The court found that Doe had not alleged clear procedural irregularities or facts supporting a plausible inference that gender bias motivated the investigation or outcome. The investigative team’s decisions about what evidence to consider were authorized by the 2019 policy. The court also found that Doe’s disagreements with the investigators’ credibility assessments and conclusions did not establish a clear procedural irregularity. Her broader allegations that Columbia was trying to respond to criticism about anti-male bias were conclusory and unsupported by specific facts.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and allowed Doe to file an amended complaint consistent with the opinion by September 22, 2022. The opinion states that the case would be closed if she did not file an amended complaint by that date. It does not expressly describe the dismissal as with or without prejudice.