Doe v. Miami Univ.

Decision Date28 March 2017
Docket NumberCase No. 1:15cv605
Citation247 F.Supp.3d 875
Parties John DOE, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

Eric John Rosenberg, The Rosenberg Law Office LPA, Granville, OH, for Plaintiff.

Rosemary Doreen Canton, Evan T. Priestle, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

MICHAEL R. BARRETT, JUDGE

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 42) Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 43) and Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 44).

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Instanter to Supplement Docket 43 with Supplemental Authorities issued after the Filing of Docket 43. (Doc. 50). Defendants opposed Plaintiff's Motion, but also filed a full response to the applicability of the authorities cited by Plaintiff. (Doc. 51). Plaintiff filed a Reply. (Doc. 52). While the Court will determine the applicability of the cited caselaw within the context of deciding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court will permit Plaintiff to supplement its Response. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.

Thereafter, Plaintiff John Doe filed two Notices of additional authority (Docs. 53, 56); Defendants filed a Response to the first Notice (Doc. 54); and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 55).

I. BACKGROUND

This case centers on Defendant Miami University's ("Miami") discipline imposed on Plaintiff John Doe in response to allegations that Plaintiff, a Miami student, sexually assaulted Jane Doe, another Miami student, on September 14, 2014.

According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was incapacitated by alcohol and therefore has no independent recollection of the events of that night. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1978, ¶ 24). However, Jane Doe's written statement is attached to the Amended Complaint and is incorporated into the allegations in the Amended Complaint. After exchanging texts, Jane Doe met up with Plaintiff and his roommate in their room. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1974, ¶ 3(d)). Jane Doe stated that she "kinda sobered up" when she arrived and "decided to stay there." (Id.) Jane Doe joined Plaintiff in his bed. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1974, ¶ 3(e)). Plaintiff started kissing her, which was "okay and what I expected and fine." (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1975, ¶ 3(g)). Plaintiff then asked Jane Doe if he could "finger" her, and she responded, "fine." (Id.) At some point Plaintiff began to perform oral sex on Jane Doe. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1975, ¶ 3(h)). Jane Doe explains that "I never said no. I pushed him away. He rolled over and went to sleep." (Id.)

Later, Jane Doe told a friend that she was uncomfortable with her interaction with Plaintiff. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1979, ¶ 28). Eventually, by word of mouth, a Resident Advisor ("RA") was told that Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by Plaintiff. (Id.) This RA reported the incident to her superiors. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1978, ¶ 29).

On September 16, 2014, the University began disciplinary proceedings. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1979, ¶ 30). The first step in the proceedings was a "summary suspension hearing." (Id.) Miami Associate Vice President of Dean of Students Michael Curme notified Plaintiff on September 16, 2014 that the summary suspension hearing was scheduled for the next day and stemmed from a "report alleging that you sexually assaulted a female student on Sunday September 14, 2014." (Id.) The summary suspension hearing was held on September 17, 2014. It was conducted by Curme and was recorded. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1979, ¶ 31). On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff received a "Notice of Alleged Violation" from the Office of Ethics and Student Conflict Resolution's ("OESCR") Director Susan Vaughn alleging he violated the "sexual assault" prohibitions in Miami's Student Conduct Regulation § 103. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1981, ¶ 39). The Notice also informed Plaintiff that he would be subject to sanctions if he did not appear at a "Procedural Review" which was scheduled less than twenty-four hours later. (Id.)

On September 24, 2014, the Procedural Review took place. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1982, ¶ 42). There, Plaintiff denied responsibility for sexually assaulting Jane Doe and requested that the charges be adjudicated by an Administrative Hearing Panel. (Id.)

On October 1, 2014, Miami sent Plaintiff a "Notice of Hearing." (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1982, ¶ 50). The Notice informed Plaintiff that he had forty-three hours to produce:

"1. A list of witnesses you intend to present to provide information to the Hearing Panel; 2. Any supporting documents you want the Hearing Panel to consider including, but not limited to, audio recordings, social media messages/postings (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) police reports, photographs, videos, etc.; 3. Any written statements you want the Hearing Panel to consider including, but not limited to, statement of the complainant or the accused or witness statements." (Id.) The Notice of Hearing sent to Jane Doe included the same October 3, 2014 deadline, but Jane Doe was permitted to submit her written statement on October 6, 2014. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1982, ¶ 51).

The Administrative Hearing took place on October 7, 2016. The hearing panel consisted of Miami's Associate Professor Alana Van Grudy-Yoder, Miami's Professor Steven Elliot and OESCR's Director Vaughn. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1982, ¶ 52). Plaintiff alleges that Grudy-Yoder holds gender-biased views against male students based on her academic research, which focuses on feminist criminological theory and the implementation of gender-specific policy and procedures within the American system of corrections. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1982, ¶ 54). Plaintiff alleges that Vaughn served as investigator, prosecutor, and judge of the charges against Plaintiff. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1982, ¶ 58). Plaintiff states that Vaughn dominated the Administrative Hearing with questions and comments designed to deflate Plaintiff's credibility while inflating Jane Doe's credibility. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1982, ¶ 58). Plaintiff alleges that Vaughn's conduct during the Administrative Hearing exhibited gender bias against males. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1982, ¶ 60). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Vaughn asked questions and made comments downplaying facts proving Jane Doe initiated physical contact with Plaintiff when she knew or should have known he was incapacitated by alcohol; and coaxed Jane Doe to provide testimony that reinforced gender biased stereotypes of male students such as Plaintiff wanting to initiate unwanted physical contact with females. (Id.)

On October 7, 2014, Vaughn notified Plaintiff that the hearing panel found him responsible for violating Miami's Student Conduct Regulation § 103; and he was suspended "from Miami for the fall, winter term and spring term ... [and that he] was eligible to apply for re-enrollment to Miami for classes beginning in the Summer of 2015." (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1987, ¶ 61). Vaughn informed Plaintiff that if he returned to Miami after his suspension he would be placed on "disciplinary probation for one year...." (Id.) On October 10, 2014, Vaughn sent a letter which, among other things, explained:

Based on the evidence and statements presented, the panel found you responsible. You stated both you and [Jane Doe] were friends and have spent time together in the past. Both of you agreed to go to your residence room, where you engaged in consensual kissing and some consensual sexual contact. However, at some point, [Jane Doe] indicated she did not want you to have oral sex and asked you to stop but the act continued as a result, the following sanctions have been imposed.

(Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1987, ¶ 62).

Plaintiff appealed the sanctions to Miami's Appeal Board, but on November 11, 2014 his appeal was rejected by Miami's Appeals Board Chair Rose Marie Ward. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1989, ¶¶ 69, 73). Plaintiff claims Ward's rejection was based on gender bias in part because Ward's academic research focuses on college student alcohol consumption and sexual assault from the perspective of protecting females from males. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1991, ¶ 74.)

Plaintiff appealed the Appeals Board decision to Dr. Jayne Brownell, Miami's Vice President of Student Affairs. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1989, ¶ 75). VP Brownell reduced John Doe's sanctions, but did not address his factual challenges to the Board's decision. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1993, ¶ 77.)

Plaintiff alleges that during this process, Miami gave Jane Doe "limited amnesty" for her underage drinking in return for her cooperation in Miami's prosecution of Plaintiff. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1983, ¶ 49). This "limited amnesty" is part of a policy found in Section 2.1.C.2 of Miami University's Student Handbook:

While the University does not condone underage drinking or violation of other University policies, it considers reporting sexual misconduct to be of paramount importance. To encourage reporting and adjudication of sexual misconduct, Miami University will extend limited amnesty to a student who has been the alleged victim of sexual misconduct. The University will generally not seek to hold the student responsible for his/her own violations of the law (e.g., underage drinking) or the Code of Student Conduct in which he or she may have been involved during the period immediately surrounding the sexual misconduct.

(Doc. 39–2, PAGEID # 2095).

Plaintiff also alleges that based on a signed statement made by Jane Doe and a text message Jane Doe sent to Plaintiff, Jane Doe initially did not want Miami to subject Plaintiff to disciplinary procedures. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1983, ¶¶ 47–48). Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff eventually succumbed to pressure by yet to be identified Miami employees who convinced Jane Doe to participate in the disciplinary procedures. (Doc. 39, PAGEID # 1983, ¶ 47).

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against Jane Doe, Miami, Miami's Vice President of Student Affairs, Dr. Jayne Brownell; Miami's Director of OESCR, Susan Vaughn; Miami's Associate Professor Alana Van Grudy-Yoder; Miami's Professor ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Doe v. Miami Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 9 Febrero 2018
    ...12(b)(6). R. 42 (Mot. to Dismiss at 6) (Page ID #3139). The district court granted the defendants' motion. Doe v. Miami Univ. , 247 F.Supp.3d 875, 896–97 (S.D. Ohio 2017). John now appeals the district court's judgment with respect to Counts 3 through 7.II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de n......
  • Gischel v. Univ. of Cincinnati
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 5 Febrero 2018
    ...for hostile environment Title IX case in the disciplinary context absent allegations of sexual harassment. See Doe v. Miami Univ. , 247 F.Supp.3d 875, 885–86 (S.D. Ohio 2017), appeal filed , No. 17–3396 (2017); Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati , 173 F.Supp.3d 586, 606 (S.D. Ohio 2016) ; Pierre v.......
  • Herman v. Ohio Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 22 Noviembre 2019
    ...relief, against the state and its departments, by citizens of another state, foreigners or its own citizens." Doe v. Miami Univ., 247 F. Supp. 3d 875, 883 (S.D. Ohio 2017) (quotation omitted). As a public university in the State of Ohio, Ohio University qualifies as an arm of the state and ......
  • Ayala v. Butler Univ., Case No. 1:16-cv-01266-TWP-DLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • 19 Octubre 2018
    ...bias in favor of alleged victims of sexual assault, but even that does not establish gender discrimination. See Doe v. Miami Univ., 247 F. Supp. 3d 875, 888 (S.D. Ohio 2017) ("However, as this Court has observed, 'demonstrating that a university official is biased in favor of the alleged vi......

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