Summary
In *John Doe v. Purdue University*, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), the Seventh Circuit held that a male student adequately alleged a liberty interest under the "stigma-plus" test where Purdue's finding of sexual violence, suspension, and disclosure to the Navy ROTC deprived him of his chosen career path, and that the university's failure to disclose evidence, biased panel, and refusal to hear witnesses stated a procedural due process claim. The court also held that the student's Title IX claim survived dismissal because allegations of pressure from the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, a biased process, and a CARE Facebook post blaming men for sexual assault raised a plausible inference of sex discrimination. However, the court affirmed dismissal of individual-capacity damages claims on qualified immunity grounds, as the right to due process in university discipline was not clearly established, and dismissed claims against the university president for lack of supervisory liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings on injunctive relief and the Title IX claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint adequately alleged that Purdue University deprived John Doe of a protected liberty interest without due process.
- Whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Whether John Doe had standing to seek injunctive relief.
- Whether the complaint stated a claim under Title IX for sex discrimination.
Holdings
- John Doe adequately alleged a stigma-plus claim: Purdue stigmatized him by formally finding him guilty of sexual violence, and changed his legal status by suspending him and causing the loss of his ROTC scholarship, thus depriving him of occupational liberty.
- These defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right to procedural due process in university disciplinary proceedings was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
- John lacks standing to seek a broad injunction against future due process violations because he did not allege a real and immediate threat of future harm. However, he has standing to seek expungement of his disciplinary record because that is a continuing harm.
- The complaint, taken together with the Dear Colleague letter and specific allegations of bias, raises a plausible inference that Purdue discriminated against John on the basis of sex.
- The claim against Daniels was properly dismissed because there is no supervisory liability under § 1983 and John did not allege personal involvement.
Key quotations
“The Due Process Clause is not a general fairness guarantee; its protection kicks in only when a state actor deprives someone of 'life, liberty, or property.'” (at 9)
“John has satisfied the 'stigma plus' test.” (at 15)
“[D]ue process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.” (at 17)
“It is plausible that Sermersheim and her advisors chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man.” (at 29)
Factual background
John Doe was a student at Purdue University in the Navy ROTC program. He had a consensual sexual relationship with Jane Doe, who later accused him of sexual assault. After an investigation and hearing, Purdue found John guilty of sexual violence and suspended him for an academic year. John was expelled from the Navy ROTC and lost his scholarship. John sued, alleging that the university's procedures were unfair and that he was discriminated against based on sex.
Procedural history
John Doe sued Purdue University and several officials after being suspended for sexual violence, alleging violations of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and sex discrimination under Title IX. The magistrate judge dismissed the complaint, holding that John failed to state a claim under either theory. John appealed the dismissal of his § 1983 claims, claims for injunctive relief, and Title IX claim.
Remand instructions
Remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with the opinion, including addressing the expungement claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Title IX claim.