Doe v. Univ. of Me. Sys.

• Decision Date: 20 February 2020
• Docket Number: Docket No. 1:19-cv-00415-NT
• Parties: JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM and DAVID FIACCO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM and DAVID FIACCO, Defendants.

Docket No. 1:19-cv-00415-NT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

February 20, 2020

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER ALIAS AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Before me is the Plaintiff's motion to proceed under an alias ("Pl.'s Mot.") (ECF No. 3) and the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ("Defs.' Mot.") (ECF No. 26). In his Complaint, the Plaintiff claims that Defendant University of Maine System ("UMS") violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by creating a hostile educational environment (Count I), engaging in selective enforcement of Title IX based on gender (Count II), and retaliating against the Plaintiff in response to his protected activity (Count III). Compl. ¶¶ 126-43 (ECF No. 1). In addition, the Plaintiff claims that UMS and David Fiacco, UMS's Director of Community Standards, Rights & Responsibilities, violated his procedural due process rights by suspending him without notice or hearing (Count IV). Compl. ¶¶ 144-50. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, and the Defendants' motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff John Doe has been a student of the University of Maine at Farmington ("UMF" or the "University") since the 2013-14 academic year. In the last few years, several women have filed complaints of misconduct against Doe. Jane Roe 1 filed the first complaint in October of 2017, alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, causing fear of physical harm, harassment/intimidation, and stalking. Compl. ¶¶ 31, 42-43. UMF fully adjudicated that claim, finding that Doe was not responsible for most of the allegations but was responsible for harassment/intimidation and stalking. Compl. ¶¶ 42-43, 61-65. In March of 2018, the University placed Doe on Deferred Disciplinary Probation. Compl. ¶ 65.

As Roe 1's allegations were being investigated, Doe reported to UMS officials that he had been sexually assaulted by another female student. Doe alleges that this other student, Jane Roe 2, had assaulted him during the spring 2017 semester and that he reported the assault to UMS officials in the spring of 2017, October of 2017, and the spring of 2019. Compl. ¶¶ 9-12, 16, 105. He asserts that UMS failed to investigate or act upon his complaint. Compl. ¶ 17.²

In October of 2018, Doe entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release ("Settlement Agreement") with UMS. (ECF No. 27-2.) The Settlement Agreement states, in part,

WHEREAS, certain disputes and controversies have arisen between the parties related to student conduct proceedings in 2017-2018 involving [Doe] at Releasee's³ University of Maine at Farmington, from which [Doe] has alleged due process and discrimination claims and other unfair treatment against Releasees ("the Dispute"). . . .

[Doe] and his heirs and assigns release and give up any and all present, past, and future claims and/or rights, whether known or unknown, which [Doe] may have against Releasees. This releases all claims, losses, damages, liabilities and/or judgments including those which Releasor now alleges to have or which may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, including those of which [Doe] is not yet aware and those not mentioned in this Release. This release applies to, but is not limited to, any and all claims resulting from anything which is in any way related to any incidents or matters related to the Dispute which occurred during the 2017-2018 academic year. The terms of this Release are contractual and not a mere recital. . . .

[DOE] EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE IS WAIVING CLAIMS THAT HE MAY HEREAFTER DISCOVER THAT MAY NOT BE PRESENTLY KNOWN OR SUSPECTED, OR FACTS IN ADDITION TO OR DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH HE NOW KNOWS OR BELIEVES TO BE TRUE, WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTERS RELATED IN ANYWAY TO THE DISPUTE AND WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY RELEASED HEREIN. [DOE] NEVERTHELESS INTENDS TO AND DOES RELEASE ALL CLAIMS FOR INJURIES THAT WERE ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY RELEASEES AS SET FORTH IN THE DISPUTE, WHETHER NOW KNOWN OR UNKNOWN AND WHETHER NOW IN EXISTENCE OR WHICH MAY ARISE IN THE FUTURE.

Settlement Agreement 1-2. Doe alleges that UMS retaliated against him after he entered into the Settlement Agreement. Compl. ¶ 77. He points to news articles and a campus-wide email from early 2019, in which UMF's interim president made comments suggesting that Doe was guilty of assault and that there had been errors in the handling of Doe's disciplinary proceeding. Compl. ¶¶ 78-86, 103-04.

On March 1, 2019, Jane Roe 2 filed a formal complaint against Doe, alleging that between 2015 and 2017 Doe had physically and sexually assaulted her. Compl. ¶ 93. Based on those allegations, UMS placed Doe on interim suspension on March 1, 2019. Compl. ¶¶ 93-94.

On August 6, 2019, the First Circuit handed down its decision in Haidak v. University of Massachusetts-Amherst, holding that a university violated a student's due process rights by suspending him without a hearing when no exigent circumstances were present. 933 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2019). In light of the Haidak decision, Doe's attorney sent an email to James Thelen, UMS's general counsel, noting the similarities between that case and Doe's and requesting that UMS lift Doe's suspension. Compl. ¶¶ 110-11. Elizabeth Lavoie, UMS's Deputy Title IX Coordinator, responded that based on the Haidak decision, "the University will be conducting a review of [Doe's] continued Interim Suspension for the 2019-2020 academic year." Compl., Ex. B (ECF No. 1-2). Ms. Lavoie's response reportedly stated,

The University will be reviewing the information collected in the course of the investigations to date and relevant prior disciplinary history. If, however, you would like to provide any additional information for the University to consider regarding your continued Interim Suspension, the University is affording you and the Reporting Party the opportunityto submit any statement, and/or supporting information for review of your continued Interim Suspension status.

Compl., Ex. B. Ms. Lavoie also provided a means for Doe to submit a written statement and supporting information. Compl., Ex. B.

On September 7, 2019, Mr. Fiacco sent Doe a letter stating that he had been "assigned to review the status of [Doe's] interim suspension." Compl., Ex. C (ECF No. 1-3). The letter continued,

In an effort to provide you with an opportunity to be heard on the interim suspension status, I am asking that you schedule a time to meet with me as soon as possible. My preference is that we conduct our meeting via teleconference. I will send a specific email allowing you to schedule a 1-hour block of time that is most convenient for you. A similar opportunity will be provided to [Roe 2]. If I do not hear from you or you fail to schedule or attend the interview, I will need to make a decision regarding your interim suspension status without the benefit of your input.

No decision on these allegations has been made. The singular purpose of my review is to determine whether, and under what circumstances, the interim suspension issued to you on March 1, 2019 should continue. I will consider any written documents, oral statements and other relevant material that has been provided to me. I will communicate my decision to you no later than close of business on Monday, September 16, 2019.

If you wish to challenge the interim action or any modifications I make, you may seek review of this decision by requesting the President or designee to review the decision. The Campus President or designee will review the request within five (5) business days of receipt of your request.

Compl., Ex. C (emphasis omitted).

Doe commenced this action on September 9, 2019. On the same day, he filed motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which he has since withdrawn, and this pending motion to proceed under alias. In his Complaint,Doe alleged that UMS had not interviewed any of his identified witnesses and that UMS had still not offered him a hearing. Compl. ¶¶ 116-17. I held a conference of counsel on September 11, 2019. At the time, the parties stated that Doe was scheduled to meet with Mr. Fiacco on September 12, 2019.⁴ The Defendants subsequently filed this motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction on October 3, 2019.

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed under Alias and to Seal Certain Documents

The Plaintiff moves to proceed under alias and to seal any documents that identify the Plaintiff by his true name. The Defendants have opposed the motion.

A. Standard of Review

" 'There is a strong common law presumption favoring public access to judicial proceedings and records.' " Flanders v. Maine, No. 2:12-cv-00277-JAW, 2019 WL 2929500, at *2 (D. Me. July 8, 2019) (slip copy) (quoting In re Salem Suede, Inc., 268 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2001)). In a civil case, "the plaintiff instigates the action, and, except in the most exceptional cases, must be prepared to proceed on the public record." Id. (internal quotations omitted). In accordance with this practice, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure direct that a case proceed in the real names of the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) ("The title of the complaint must name all the parties."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1) (absent specified exceptions, "[a]n action must beprosecuted in the name of the real party in interest"). The Rules themselves do not provide a means for a party to proceed anonymously.

However, federal courts have permitted parties to proceed under pseudonym in certain cases. See Doe v. Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. (Dartmouth I), No. 18-cv-040-LM, 2018 WL 2048385, at *7 (D. Mass. May 2, 2018). Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the First Circuit has "definitively articulated" when a plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym. See id. at *2. In the related context of a...