Doe v. Amherst Coll., Civil Action No. 15–30097–MGM

Citation238 F.Supp.3d 195
Decision Date28 February 2017
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 15–30097–MGM
Parties John DOE, Plaintiff, v. AMHERST COLLEGE, Carolyn Martin, James Larimore, Torin Moore, Susie Mitton Shannon, and Laurie Frankl, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts

Megan C. Deluhery, Hillary Lehmann, Max D. Stern, Todd & Weld LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Scott A. Roberts, Tobias W. Crawford, Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an individual proceeding under the pseudonym "John Doe"1 and the son of Asian–American immigrants, enrolled at Amherst College (the "College") as a first-year student in the fall of 2010. In October of 2013 he was informed that another student, Sandra Jones, had filed a complaint accusing him of sexual misconduct on the night of February 4–5, 2012. Jones alleged that she engaged in consensual sexual activities with Doe, but that Doe continued the activity even after she withdrew her consent. Doe has consistently claimed he had consumed so much alcohol that he "blacked out" and could not remember a large portion of the night, including the time during which he interacted with Jones. The College initiated an expedited disciplinary proceeding against Doe under a set of recently amended policies incorporated in its student handbook (the "Student Handbook "). As part of that process, the College hired an independent attorney to conduct an investigation. On December 13, 2013, the day after a hearing before the College's Sexual Misconduct Hearing Board (the "Hearing Board"), the Hearing Board found Doe "responsible, by a preponderance of the evidence, for violating the Statement on Respect of Persons specifically the Sexual Misconduct Policy: Sexual Assault. " (Dkt. No. 102–4, Dec. 13, 2013 Hr'g Bd Dec. ("Hr'g Bd Dec.").) Among the factors "influential in their finding" was that Doe's "account of being ‘blacked out’ [was] credible," but did not excuse his failure to stop when Jones withdrew consent. (Id. ) The Hearing Board imposed sanctions on Doe, including immediate expulsion from the College. (Id. )

Doe appealed his expulsion, identifying new evidence, which he believed was relevant to establishing that Jones and her witness had a political agenda which motivated Jones to be less than fully honest in her complaint and testimony. He further asserted there were material procedural errors which prejudiced him and demonstrated the existence of gender-based bias in the process culminating in his expulsion. The College denied his appeal, stating, in part, that "[w]hatever broad political agenda [Jones and her witness] may have had or not is immaterial to the panel's decision." (Dkt. No. 39–2, Dec. 27, 2013 Email from Peter Uvin.) Several months later, Doe received copies of text messages sent by Jones to another student shortly after he had departed from her room after the incident at issue. These texts can be read in a way that raises additional questions about the credibility of the version of events Jones gave during the disciplinary proceeding against Doe. These text messages had not been provided to the investigator and the investigator had not interviewed the individual who received them. Doe asserts the discovery of these text messages raises questions about the adequacy of the investigation.

Based in part on the existence and content of the text messages, Doe requested the College reopen his disciplinary proceedings. The College declined to do so and on May 29, 2015 Doe filed a complaint stating claims against the College and various individuals. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) The crux of Doe's complaint is that he was subjected to a biased disciplinary process set into motion and conducted to ensure the College would expel a male student accused of sexual misconduct, regardless of the specific facts, and this process violated his contract with the College and his rights under both federal and state law.

The College and the individual defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on October 5, 2015. Doe subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 59.). Following several motions for extension of time, the court held a hearing on both Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on May 27, 2016. The court allowed the motion for leave to amend and Doe filed his Amended Complaint on June 15, 2016 (Dkt. No. 102). On June 24, Defendants' requested the court clarify whether it required Defendants to file additional briefing to address new claims made in the amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 104). The court subsequently clarified that Defendants had the option of relying on their prior briefing or submitting an updated memorandum following the filing of the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 105.) Defendants have elected to rely on the existing briefing.

In his Amended Complaint, Doe asserts claims against both the College and individual defendants, Carolyn Martin, President of the College ("Martin"); James Larimore, chair of the Hearing Board which conducted Doe's disciplinary hearing and the College's Dean of Students at the time of the disciplinary hearing ("Larimore"); Susie Mitton Shannon, the College's Interim Dean of Student Conduct and Deputy Title IX Coordinator at the time of the disciplinary proceedings against Doe ("Mitton Shannon"); and Laurie Frankl, who became the College's Title IX Coordinator on December 3, 2013 ("Frankl"), all in their individual capacities. With respect to the College Doe claims breach of contract (Count I); breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II); violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("Title IX") (Count IV); violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count V); violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, MASS. GEN. Laws. ch. 12 §§ 11H, 11I ("MCRA") (Count VI); defamation (Count VII); and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count IX). As to the individual defendants, Doe asserts claims for tortious interference with contract (Count III); violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count V); violation of the MCRA (Count VI); defamation (Count VII); negligence (Count VIII); and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count IX). In Count X, Doe seeks injunctive relief, but does not make out an additional substantive claim. For the reasons set forth below, the court will allow Defendants' motion as to counts III, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX and deny it as to counts I, II, IV, and X.

II. JURISDICTION

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in Counts IV and V, which allege violations of federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The remainder of Doe's claims (Counts I–III and VI–X) arise under state law. Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims brought together with claims arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In addition, federal courts have jurisdiction over suits brought pursuant to state law where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the adversaries and the amount in controversy exceeds a threshold amount of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ; Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 513, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). Plaintiff is a resident of New York while the individual defendants are residents of Connecticut (Mitton Shannon), Iowa (Larimore), or Massachusetts (Martin and Frankl) and the College is located in Massachusetts. Plaintiff asserts he is entitled to damages in excess of the statutory threshold amount. In the absence of any challenge from Defendants, the court finds it has jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Having previously filed an answer, Defendants proceed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), rather than the more typical motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim brought under Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. " ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings [under Rule 12(c) ] is treated much like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,’ with the court viewing ‘the facts contained in the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw[ing] all reasonable inferences therefrom.’ " In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig. , 814 F.3d 538, 549 (1st Cir. 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Pérez–Acevedo v. Rivero–Cubano , 520 F.3d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 2008) ). A complaint must survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings if it alleges sufficient facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim is "plausible on its face" if it "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). As in the case of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is permitted to consider documents central to the plaintiff's claims where the authenticity of the documents is not disputed and the complaint adequately references the documents. Curran v. Cousins , 509 F.3d 36, 44 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Watterson v. Page , 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993) ). Additionally, "[a] Rule 12(c) motion, unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, implicates the pleadings as a whole." Aponte–Torres v. Univ. of P.R. , 445 F.3d 50, 54–55 (1st Cir. 2006).

IV. BACKGROUND 2
A. Recent History of the College's Approach to Handling Sexual Misconduct on Campus

On April 4, 2011, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education ("DOE") issued a "Dear Colleague" letter addressed to recipients of federal funding who operate "educational programs and activities" ("Dear Colleague Letter"). Dear Colleague Letter (April 4, 2011),...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Gourdeau v. City of Newton, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13–12832–WGY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • March 2, 2017
  • Doe v. Wash. Univ.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • January 21, 2020
    ...a person's will or where a person is incapable of giving consent due to the victim's use of drugs or alcohol." Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d 195, 204–05 (D. Mass. 2017). The 2011 DCL had two major effects. "First, it generally signaled that OCR had adopted a ‘get tough’ approach, th......
  • Doe v. Loyola Univ. Md.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 29, 2021
    ...the parties and dictated that the student had no cause of action in negligence but rather only in contract); Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d 195, 228 (D. Mass. 2017) (rejecting plaintiff's negligence claim because college did not find that a legal duty was owed directly to students, r......
  • Z.J. v. Vanderbilt Univ., 3:17-cv-00936
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • December 19, 2018
    ...troubling" results of a study showing that a third of female students had reported being sexually assaulted); Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F.Supp.3d 195, 223 (D. Mass. 2017) (plaintiff alleged that university was trying to "appease" a biased, student-led movement of which the alleged victim wa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Rushing to Get Rid of Greek Life and Social Clubs: The Impact of Bostock on Single-Sex College Organizations.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 3, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...at 282-87 (criticizing both cases as departures from ordinary constitutional jurisprudence). (159.) See, e.g., Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d 195, 215 (D. Mass. 2017); A.E. v. Hamilton Coll., 104 N.Y.S.3d 445, 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019); Doe v. Coll, of Wooster, 243 F. Supp. 3d 875, 8......
  • Hiring and Training Competent Title IX Hearing Officers.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 86 No. 1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...Discriminate Against Minority Students, 18 NEV. L.J. 107, 144-48 (2017) (describing several lawsuits); Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d 195, 217 (D. Mass. 2017) (denying motion to dismiss in case involving allegations that "the College did not follow its own rules and conducted the hea......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT