Doe v. Loyola Univ. Md.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-20-1227 |
| Parties | JANE DOE Plaintiff v. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MARYLAND Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This case is rooted in competing claims of sexual misconduct lodged by a female student and a male student at Loyola University Maryland ("Loyola," the "School," or "University"), a private educational institution in Baltimore. Plaintiff, a female proceeding under the pseudonym "Jane Doe," and the male student, identified as "John Doe," were both undergraduate students at the relevant time. Plaintiff was 19 years of age. ECF 2-14 at 16.1
John Doe was the first to lodge accusations of sexual assault. A few weeks later, plaintiff accused John Doe of sexual misconduct. So, each was both a complainant and a respondent during the School's investigation of the allegations. Loyola adjudicated the complaints simultaneously, pursuant to its sexual misconduct policy.
Plaintiff was found to have sexually assaulted John Doe because she had sexual intercourse with him when, according to Loyola, he was too intoxicated to give consent. And, John Doe wasfound to have committed sexual assault of plaintiff based on choking her during the sexual encounter. John Doe was also found to have committed "Sexual Verbal Abuse" based on his use of inappropriate sexual language. The students received identical sanctions of a one-semester suspension.
Unhappy with the disposition, plaintiff filed suit against Loyola, challenging the University's process and its decision. ECF 1 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint contains five counts. ECF 1. In Count I, Ms. Doe seeks declaratory relief, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to the effect that Loyola's student disciplinary process, as written and applied, violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Count II, titled "Erroneous Outcome from a Flawed Proceeding," asserts a claim of gender bias under Title IX. Plaintiff also lodges several claims under Maryland law: negligence (Count III); breach of contract (Count IV); and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count V).2 The Complaint also includes 26 exhibits, some of which are quite lengthy. ECF 2-1 to ECF 2-26.
According to plaintiff, this "case arises amidst a growing national controversy stemming from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights ('OCR') threats to withhold federal education dollars in order to compel colleges and universities to address so-called 'sexual violence' on campuses." ECF 1, ¶ 10. She argues that the University's findings were the result "of a rigged and unfair disciplinary process." Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff complains of an erroneous outcome "as a result of the sham sexual assault trial," and asserts that "nothing even resembling due process wasprovided . . . ." ECF 33 at 5. In essence, plaintiff insists that it was not physically possible for her to have committed a sexual assault of John Doe and that John Doe was not so incapacitated as to be unable to consent.
Loyola has moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 12. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 12-1, collectively, the "Motion") and thirteen exhibits. ECF 13 to ECF 26. Defendant's exhibits are also exhibits to the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. ECF 33 (the "Opposition"). Defendant has replied. ECF 34 (the "Reply").
The parties have not pointed the Court to any other sexual assault cases involving a male student who accused a female student of sexual assault. In the search for similar cases, I have found only two such cases: Doe v. California Inst. Of Tech., No. 2:19-cv-01005-AB (KSx), 2019 WL 8645652 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2019); Roe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 1:18-cv-312, 2018 WL 9944938 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2018).
Despite the uncommon nature of the allegations here, I am satisfied that no hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion, with leave to amend.
Loyola is "a private, liberal arts college" in Baltimore with a population of approximately 4,000 undergraduate students. ECF 1, ¶¶ 3, 8.4 During the 2018-2019 academic year, plaintiff and John Doe were undergraduate students and members of Loyola's Class of 2022. Id. ¶¶ 2, 29; ECF 2-6 () at 1.
During the relevant period, Loyola received federal funding from the U.S. Department of Education. ECF 1, ¶ 9. In order to receive federal funding, Loyola, like many other colleges and universities, agreed to operate its programs and activities in accordance with Title IX and Title IX regulations. Id. ¶¶ 14, 15. This agreement is known as an "assurance of compliance." Id. ¶ 14.
Loyola's student conduct standards and policies are contained in a document titled "Community Standards." See ECF 2-1 (the "Handbook" or "Community Standards" for 2018-2019). The Handbook contains a detailed policy on "Sexual and Gender Based Misconduct." Id. at 35-43 (the "Policy" or the "Sexual Misconduct Policy").
The Policy sets forth the definitions applicable to allegations of sexual misconduct, several of which are relevant here. Consent "is defined as an affirmative indication by words and/or actions of a voluntary agreement to engage in the particular sexual act or conduct in question." Id. at 35, ¶ 21. The definition continues, id. (emphasis added):
Consent for one sexual act or conduct does not constitute consent to all sexual acts or conduct. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, and once withdrawal of consent has been expressed, sexual activity must cease. Consent cannot be obtained through the use of force, threat, intimidation, or coercion. Consent cannot be given by someone who is not able to effectively communicate or to understand the nature of the conduct being engaged in as a result of incapacitation due to consuming drugs or alcohol or for any other reason (including but not limited to being unconscious, asleep, or otherwise unaware that sexual activity is occurring). . . . Silence or absence of resistance on the part of an individual does not constitute their consent.
"Sexual Verbal Abuse" is defined as "using language that is sexual in nature and unwanted on the part of another person." Id. at 35, ¶ 21(b). It includes oral communication that is "obscene in nature." Id.
"Sexual Assault" is defined to include Id. at 36, ¶ 21(c).
Also of relevance here, the Handbook includes a section on "Physical Conflict." Id. at 34, ¶ 15. According to the Handbook, physical conflict "includes acts of violence including, but not limited to, punching, kicking, scratching, spitting, biting, pushing, slapping, etc." Id. Further, it states: "Standard sanction: suspension or expulsion from the University." Id. (emphasis in original).
The Sexual Misconduct Policy provides comprehensive "Procedures for Adjudicating Charges of Sexual Misconduct." Id. at 39. The Policy indicates that the procedures "provide for prompt, fair, equitable, and impartial investigation and resolution of all reports of sexual misconduct" and all "participants will be treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity." Id. Further, it provides: "Investigations and hearings will be conducted by officials who have received annual training on the issues related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and on how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of participants and promotes accountability." Id.
In addition, the Policy describes, in detail, the process and procedures for (1) the filing of sexual misconduct complaints; (2) the notification to and response from a respondent; (3) the investigation conducted by a third party, hired by the University; (4) a hearing panel that makesfindings of fact, determinations, and decisions with regard to sanctions; and (5) the appeals process. See id. at 37-43.
With respect to the investigation phase, the Policy specifies that the Title IX Deputy for Students or his/her designee selects an independent investigator. Id. at 40. During the investigation, the complainant and respondent will "have the right to submit to the investigator evidence, witness lists, and suggested questions for witnesses." Id. And, at the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator is required to "prepare a written report summarizing and analyzing the evidence." Id. The complainant and respondent are both provided with the report and, within five days, "may submit a written response" that will be shared with the investigator, the hearing panel, and the Office of Student Conduct. Id.
Thereafter, based on "the investigation and the parties' responses, if any, the Office of Student Conduct may schedule a sexual misconduct hearing panel[.]" Id. The hearing panel consists of one faculty member, one administrator, and the Director of Student Conduct, and all "the panel members will receive special training on sexual misconduct cases." Id. Both the respondent and complainant "may each have an advisor [of choice] present throughout the entire process, including the hearing." Id. But, the "advisor is not allowed to address the investigators, address the hearing panel, or question witnesses." Id. In addition, the "respondent and the complainant each have the right to bring fact witnesses to the hearing to testify on their behalf." Id. at 41.
The Policy also sets forth the procedures for the hearing. Id. At the outset, the panel chair reviews student rights, responsibilities, and the charges. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial