Doe v. Haverford Coll.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 23-299 |
| Decision Date | 07 August 2023 |
| Parties | JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. HAVERFORD COLLEGE et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
This is an action brought by a former student athlete at Haverford College who contends that he was unfairly excluded from team membership because of unfounded allegations that he committed sexual assault. Plaintiff John Doe[1] contends that Haverford's Sexual Misconduct Policy constitutes a contract, which it breached. He also advances common law tort claims and alleges discrimination in violation of Title IX. Doe alleges a plausible breach of contract claim, and marginally pleads a defamation claim against his coach. But the facts alleged are otherwise a poor fit for the remaining claims Doe presents, and those claims will be dismissed.
Plaintiff John Doe recently completed his senior year at Defendant Haverford College (“Haverford” or “the College”).[2] For much of Doe's time at Haverford he was a member of a varsity sports team at the College and was selected as a co-captain of his team in the fall of 2021 Am. Compl. ¶ 30. Prior to the events at issue in this case, Doe alleges that he had no conflicts with his teammates or coaches. Id. ¶ 31. Doe asserts that he was always a student in good standing with the College and had a “completely clean” disciplinary history. Id. ¶¶ 31, 152.
In October 2020, during Doe's sophomore year, student-led protests for racial justice emerged on Haverford's campus. Id. ¶ 34. The immediate impetus for these protests was a statement from the Haverford administration regarding a police shooting in Philadelphia, but the protests were also spurred by pre-existing concerns among the student body regarding racial justice on campus. Id. The protests ultimately led to a two-week campus-wide strike, during which students refused to attend classes, participate in campus activities, or work at campus jobs. Id. Defendant Captain A, one of Doe's co-captains on his athletic team, was one of the leaders of this strike, and Defendant Coach 1, the head coach of Doe's athletic team, was publicly supportive of Captain A's “great leadership role” in the strike. Id. ¶¶ 34, 39.
Although the strike and its demands were supported by many in the Haverford community, Doe alleges that this support was not universal, and disagreements over the strike became extremely divisive. Id. ¶ 35. Students who were less than fully aligned with the strike's objectives and methods, or who took actions that were perceived as “crossing the picket line,” were sometimes harassed by organizers and supporters of the strike. Id. This atmosphere extended to campus athletic teams, and certain supporters of the strike refused to be on the same team as teammates who opposed, or appeared to oppose, aspects of the strike. Id. ¶ 36. After Doe supported an editorial in the student newspaper in late October expressing support for some aspects of the strike and its demands but criticizing attempts to silence dissent, he was removed from a message thread organized by the leaders of the strike. Id. ¶ 37.
Several months later, in April 2021, Haverford campus safety found an African American man sleeping in a campus trailer and alerted local police, who arrested the man and charged him with criminal trespass. Id. ¶ 40. Students in a different campus text thread of strike supporters, which included Doe, criticized Haverford's response and accused the College of continuing to engage in racist behavior. Id. After Doe expressed his view that calling the police in these circumstances was insufficient to establish that Haverford was racist, Doe himself was accused of racism and removed from the group. Id.
A year later, in early 2022, an allegedly false rumor began to circulate on campus that Doe had sexually assaulted an unnamed female student at Haverford. Id. ¶¶ 42-43. The rumor contained no specific details about the alleged assault, and Doe has consistently denied any physical or sexual contact with the student identified as the victim of the assault. Id. ¶¶ 3, 42-44. According to Doe, the false rumor was created to penalize Doe for his less than absolute support for the campus strike, his opinions that did not fully align with those of strike organizers, and his association with individuals who opposed the strike. Id. ¶ 41.
Captain A and another of Doe's co-captains reported the allegation to Coach 1 in early February of 2022. Id. ¶ 4. The coach advised Doe that he was required to report allegations of sexual misconduct due to his position and notified Haverford's Title IX Office of the allegation. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. The coach directed Doe to step away from the team until it was resolved, and that same day Doe notified his teammates via email of his intention to briefly step away from the team. Id.
The Title IX Office reviewed the information provided by Coach 1 and considered whether it would open a formal investigation into the allegation. Id. ¶¶ 6, 55-57. At some point, the Office also communicated with the alleged victim, who stated that she did not intend to file any formal complaint against Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 96-97. After conducting this preliminary inquiry, the Title IX Office did not open a formal investigation and communicated to Plaintiff that he could continue his life at Haverford as normal. Id. ¶¶ 55-57.
Shortly thereafter, Doe met with his coach, informed him of the Title IX Office's conclusion, and asked to rejoin the team. Id. ¶ 58. The coach, however, advised Doe that he was no longer welcome on the team, as the other captains did not want him to rejoin. Id. ¶ 59. At a follow-up meeting on March 15, 2022, the coach advised Doe that the other captains' position was driven by the sexual assault allegation against him. Id. ¶ 63.
One week later, on March 22, Doe had another meeting with his coach, the Title IX Coordinator, the Athletic Director, a Senior Associate Dean of the College, and the team cocaptains. Id. ¶ 69. The meeting focused on the sexual assault allegation against Doe and his cocaptains' strong desire to prevent Doe from returning to the team due to the allegation, though the Title IX coordinator emphasized that Doe faced no existing or potential Title IX investigation. Id. ¶¶ 70-75. Doe's co-captains also briefly discussed more general concerns about Doe's misogynistic behavior. Id. During the meeting, Coach 1 confirmed that Doe would not be permitted to rejoin the team and stated repeatedly that Doe had mental health issues and should leave the school to seek psychological treatment. Id. ¶¶ 75-76. Sometime after this meeting, Haverford finalized Doe's separation from the team by removing his name from the team roster published on the College's athletics website. Id. ¶ 81.
Since March 2022, Doe - along with his parents, grandmother, and counsel - has engaged in numerous communications and meetings with staff and administrators at Haverford to seek reinstatement to the team. In early May, Doe met with the Dean of Haverford and the Athletic Director to request that he be permitted to rejoin the team. Id. ¶ 100. But the Dean stood by the coach's actions, emphasizing that participation in athletics was a privilege for students, not a right, and stating that Doe's return would lead other team members and the coach to quit. Id. In August and September, Doe's family and counsel reached out to Haverford officials in the hope of resolving the issue prior to the fall semester. Id. ¶¶ 110-12. And on September 9, Doe proposed a plan to Haverford administrators whereby the administration would require Coach 1 to reinstate Doe, and further require Coach 1 to state to the team that Doe was entitled to a “presumption of innocence” and that no player could be excluded from a Haverford athletic team based on a rumor. Id. ¶ 114.
In response, the administration rejected Doe's plan and proposed a path to reinstatement that involved Doe meeting with his coach and a co-captain to convince them to allow Doe to rejoin the team. Id. ¶¶ 115. Doe subsequently met with Coach 1 on October 24, 2022. Id. ¶ 122. During the meeting, Coach 1 acknowledged that the allegation of sexual assault was not a proper basis to keep Doe off the team, but stated that team members had raised other concerns with Doe returning to the team that were unrelated to the assault allegation. Id. ¶¶ 123-25. The coach would not elaborate on what these concerns entailed and insisted that Plaintiff discuss these issues directly with his teammates. Id. Doe was unable to meet with two co-captains of the team until several weeks later, on December 2. Id. ¶¶ 127, 139. During the meeting, Captain A was steadfast in his belief that Doe should not return to the team. Id. ¶ 140. When asked to explain why, Captain A stated that he had general concerns with Plaintiff's treatment of women but did not identify any specific examples of such behavior. Id. ¶¶ 141-42.
After this meeting, Doe again reached out to his coach and asked to be reinstated, based on his belief that the teammates' concerns were improperly rooted in unfounded rumors. Id. ¶ 143. The coach did not respond, but Doe subsequently received an email from the Athletic Director and Assistant Athletic Director scheduling a meeting for December 19. Id. ¶¶ 144-45. At this meeting, the Athletic Director communicated Coach 1's position that Doe's reinstatement was not in the best interests of the team, though the Athletic Director had no knowledge of whether the rumor played...
To continue reading
Request your trial