Doe v. Purdue Univ.
| Decision Date | 15 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO.: 4:19-CV-84-JVB-JEM |
| Parties | JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. PURDUE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss Section 1983 Claims [DE 17], filed by Defendants Purdue University, Alysa Rollock, and Katherine Sermersheim on October 25, 2019. Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a response on November 15, 2019, and Defendants filed a reply on November 22, 2019. For the reasons below, the Court grants the motion.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this cause of action by filing a five-count complaint on September 4, 2019. Counts 1 and 2, which Defendants do not seek dismissal of in their motion, are claims brought under Title IX. For Counts 3, 4, and 5, Plaintiff identifies as the basis for relief as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Plaintiff's equal protection and due process rights. Count 3 is brought against Rollock and Sermersheim in their official capacities, Count 4 is brought against Sermersheim in her individual capacity, and Count 5 is brought against Rollock in her individual capacity.
Plaintiff makes the following factual allegations in her complaint. She was sexually assaulted after becoming incapacitated at a party on January 28, 2017. She did not report the assault to Defendants at that time. She suffered depression and anxiety associated with post-traumatic stress as a result of the stress. When she sought medical treatment from Purdue University Counseling and Psychological Services on February 6, 2017, and February 13, 2017, she disclosed a recent history of sexual violence and the sexual assault.
Plaintiff's post-traumatic stress disorder caused her to become overwhelmed easily, and she stopped attending classes because she had difficulty performing cognitive tasks. She was dropped from Purdue University due to inadequate grades in May 2017. By this time, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Plaintiff disclosed to her academic advisor that her grades had suffered due to the anxiety and depression that resulted from the sexual assault and asked how she could be reinstated. The advisor referred her to the Office of Institutional Equity. At that office, Plaintiff was directed to fill out paperwork to officially report the assault to Purdue University. Two investigators from the office launched an investigation into the assault. The investigators reported to Sermersheim and Rollock.
The investigation relied heavily on Plaintiff's impaired recollection. Because Plaintiff had to rely on friends' recollections of the events that night, Defendants found Plaintiff to be an unreliable witness and disregarded the fact that Plaintiff clearly and consistently recalled the circumstances of the assault itself. The investigation also relied on Plaintiff's inability to recall certain events, which was due to her being overwhelmed by anxiety and depression in the months after the assault.
Defendants did not give Plaintiff notice that she was being treated as a target of the investigation. On August 15, 2017, Sermersheim issued a finding that Plaintiff falsely reported the assault in bad faith in an attempt to be reinstated, found that Plaintiff made false statements to investigators, and found that Plaintiff had consented to the sexual encounter underlying the assault allegation. Sermersheim construed Plaintiff's questions to academic officials regarding whethershe needed to report the assault in order to be reinstated and whether she could be penalized for it as proof of a scheme to be reinstated at her assaulter's expense. Plaintiff's questions were taken out of context and violated the safeguards meant to shield Title IX complainants from retaliation. Sermersheim referred Plaintiff to the Purdue Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities to assess whether she had engaged in conduct for which she may be subject to discipline.
On September 1, 2017, Rollock instructed Sermersheim to amend her findings to include an allegation that, on the night of the assault, Plaintiff had engaged in harassment by groping a male student (not the assaulter). Proceedings on this allegation commenced, and, upon the adoption of "Amended Final Findings" on September 29, 2017, Purdue University expelled Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed, and Rollock reversed the finding of bad faith but upheld the findings of false statements and consent to sexual contact. The expulsion was converted to a suspension. After the suspension, Plaintiff was informed that investigators had substantiated the harassment claim and, as a result, upon returning from suspension, Plaintiff would be placed on academic probation.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants implemented a policy wherein women who cannot prove their claims to the satisfaction of Purdue University decisionmakers face discipline up to expulsion.
Plaintiff requests reinstatement to good standing at Purdue University, make-whole relief including lost tuition and expenses, removal of the discipline form her record, compensatory damages, punitive damages, court costs and expenses, and interest.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is to test the sufficiency of the pleading, not to decide the merits of the case. See Gibson v. City of Chi., 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2) providesthat a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." However, "recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 661, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). As the Supreme Court has stated, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id. Rather, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A complaint is facially plausible if a court can reasonably infer from factual content in the pleading that the defendant is liable for the alleged wrongdoing. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
The Seventh Circuit has synthesized the standard into three requirements. See Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Id.
ANALYSIS
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "(1) that defendants deprived [her] of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law." Lantz v. Office of Jackson Twp. Tr., 938 F. Supp. 2d 810, 822 (N.D. Ind. 2013) (citing Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006)). Plaintiff brings claims under two constitutional theories: due process and equal protection. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." U.S.Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Equal Protection Clause of the same amendment provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Id.
To state a due process claim, a plaintiff must allege that a state actor deprived her of "life, liberty, or property." Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652, 659 (7th Cir. 2019). There is no contention that Plaintiff has been deprived of her life, so the remaining possibilities are deprivation of property or liberty.
"A college education . . . is not 'property' in the usual sense of the word." Williams v. Wendler, 530 F.3d 584, 589 (7th Cir. 2008).
[T]o demonstrate that [she] possesses the requisite property interest, a university student must do more than show that [she] has a contract with university; [she] must establish that the contract entitled [her] to the specific right that the university allegedly took, such as the right to a continuing education or the right not to be suspended without good cause. Generalities won't do; the student's complaint must be specific about the source of this implied contract, the exact promised the university made to the student, and the promises the student made in return.
Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d at 660 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not identified any specific contract provision or right. She has not alleged a property interest.
In her response brief, Plaintiff indicates that, instead of a property interest, she is alleging a deprivation of her liberty interest to be free from sexual assault. Essentially, her argument is that the alleged Purdue University policy of requiring female complainants of sexual assaults to take on the risk of expulsion if their complaints are not proved to the satisfaction of Purdue University decisionmakers chills the reporting of sexual assaults and threatens the safety of women on campus. "Generally, state actors do not have a due process obligation to protect citizens from private violence." Sandra T.E. v. Grindle, 599 F.3d 583, 589 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195-97 (1989)). It is unclear to the Court how Purdue University's policy, as alleged, is anything more than a failure to protect from privateviolence. The cases cited by Plaintiff, Stoneking v. Bradford Area Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720, 729 (3d Cir. 1989), and Grindle both involved allegations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial