Title IX Case: Tenth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment for University

John Doe v. University of Denver was decided by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 15, 2021. The case involved a Title IX challenge by John Doe, who alleged that his expulsion from the University of Denver was the result of discrimination based on sex. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the university and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Background of the Disciplinary Action

Doe enrolled at the University of Denver in 2015 and became involved with a fellow student, Jane Roe. In early 2016, after a night of drinking, the two had sexual intercourse. Roe later reported the incident as non-consensual, initiating a Title IX investigation by the university. Doe maintained that the encounter was consensual. Roe shared different accounts of the incident with various people and did not report it to the university until three weeks later.

University Investigation and Discipline

Following Roe's complaint on March 24, 2016, university investigators interviewed Roe and eleven individuals she had spoken to about the incident. Although Doe identified five witnesses, only his psychologist, Dr. Mary Bricker, was interviewed, and only after he raised objections. Dr. Bricker submitted a letter alleging her statements were misrepresented and expressed concern about the investigation's fairness.

The university relied on an incomplete medical report from Roe, which lacked analysis from medical professionals and Roe's written statement. Despite this, the Final Report concluded that Doe had engaged in non-consensual sexual contact. A disciplinary committee reviewed the report and expelled Doe. His appeal was denied.

District Court Proceedings

Doe filed suit against the university and several administrators, asserting claims under Title IX, due process, breach of contract, and other state law theories. The district court granted summary judgment to the university on all claims. It found that Doe had not provided sufficient evidence that the university acted with bias based on his sex.

Tenth Circuit Reversal

The Tenth Circuit applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Doe had established a prima facie case of sex discrimination. Evidence included the university's refusal to interview his witnesses, its reliance on inconsistent statements from Roe, its use of incomplete medical records, and the omission of potentially exculpatory evidence.

The court also considered statistical evidence showing that from 2016 to 2018, twenty-one complaints by male students were not formally investigated, while the university investigated fourteen out of 105 complaints brought by female students. Complaints against female students by males were not investigated, while one complaint by a female against another female was. Sanctions imposed also varied based on the sex of the respondent. A female found responsible for non-consensual touching received a deferred suspension, while a male found responsible for non-consensual touching or kissing received a full suspension.

The court concluded that the procedural irregularities, when combined with the statistical disparities, could allow a reasonable jury to find that sex was a motivating factor in the university's actions. It reversed the summary judgment and sent the case back to the district court.

Discrimination Help

If you’ve experienced workplace discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles cases involving wrongful termination, hostile work environments, and more. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your claim.