Doe v. Vanderbilt Univ.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:18-cv-00569,3:18-cv-00569 |
| Parties | JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 39). Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 42), and Defendants filed a Reply. (Doc. No. 43). For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Plaintiff, a former Vanderbilt University ("Vanderbilt") student, brings this action arising out of Vanderbilt's investigation of an accusation of sexual misconduct made against him by a female student ("Jane Roe"). After the investigation, Vanderbilt concluded sexual misconduct had occurred and expelled Plaintiff as a sanction. On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting numerous causes of action, specifically (1) Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("Title IX"); (2) the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; (3) breach of contract; (4) promissory estoppel; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligence; (7) gross negligence; (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (9) negligent training and supervision of employee claims, including sub-claims based on different theories of liability. (See Doc. No. 35). On October 9, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 39).
Vanderbilt is a private university located in Nashville, Tennessee, that accepts federal funding. (Doc. No. 35 at ¶ 5). Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Mumbai, India, was a sophomore at Vanderbilt in the spring of 2017. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 14). Upon enrolling at Vanderbilt, Plaintiff - like every other student - became (1) generally bound by Vanderbilt's honor code, which is embodied in the "Community Creed," and (2) specifically governed by the policies and regulations set forth in the Vanderbilt Student Handbook ("Handbook").
The Handbook includes a dedicated disciplinary policy concerning "Sexual Misconduct and Intimate Partner Violence" ("Sexual Misconduct Policy"). (Doc. No. 41-1 at 105-126). Vanderbilt recommends that students make complaints of sexual misconduct directly to its Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, and Disabilities Services Department ("EAD"), which is led by the University's Title IX Coordinator (at the time Anita Jenious), and has responsibility for administrative investigation of reports of Sexual Misconduct Policy violations. (Id. at 115, 106). "The Title IX Coordinator, EAD staff, the Director of Student Accountability, and Project Safe Center staff are trained at least annually, and on an ongoing basis, on issues related to sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and intimate partner violence, and in in conducting investigations in a manner that protects the well-being and safety of the complainant, the respondent, and the University community." (Id. 40-1 at 125). Students may also make an initial complaint to another Vanderbilt employee, and that person will refer the matter to EAD. (Id. at 108).
After a complaint of a violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy is brought to the attention of EAD, the Title IX Coordinator will determine whether EAD should conduct an investigation. (Doc. No. 40-1 at 116-17). The EAD will conduct an intake process to assist the Title IX Coordinator in determining how to proceed with a sexual misconduct report and whether interim measures are needed. (Id. at 116). The intake process may include preliminary interviews of the complainant, respondent, or witnesses, consultation with other University offices, and initial review of potentially relevant evidence. (Id.).
Upon a determination by the Title IX Coordinator that an investigation involving a student respondent will be conducted, "EAD will normally provide a summary of the allegations to the Director of Student Accountability," who will then "determine the charge(s) to be brought, if any, and present the charge(s) and possible sanctions to the respondent." (Id. at 117). "After the presentation of any charge(s), "the respondent will have the opportunity to agree or disagree with each of them." (Id.). "Whether or not Student Accountability has already presented the charges, EAD will inform the respondent of the allegations, provide the respondent an opportunity to respond to the allegations, ask questions, provide information, and offer names of witnesses or other people with relevant information." (Id.).
The Sexual Misconduct Policy provides that EAD investigators will interview the respondent and other individuals that it determines "may have pertinent knowledge." (Id.). "Potentially relevant information and documents may be collected from the complainant, respondent, witnesses, and third parties." (Id.). The Sexual Misconduct Policy states that the EAD will prepare summaries of its interviews, and the complainant and the respondent will be given the opportunity "to review and revise the summary of their own interview." (Id.).
During an investigation, both a complainant and respondent are permitted to have an "adviser" of their choosing to accompany them to meetings related to the report of a violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy. (Id. at 116, 118). The adviser for either party may confer privately with that party, but may not speak on the party's behalf or otherwise participate in any meeting. (Id. at 118).
Prior to making a final determination, EAD prepares a preliminary investigation report that contains a summary of the information and documents that EAD considers relevant to whether the respondent violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy. (Id. at 117). The complainant and respondent are each given an opportunity to review a copy of the preliminary investigation report. (Id.). Both the complainant and respondent are then allowed to submit, within five days, up to five pages of written comments. (Id. at 118). After considering those comments on the preliminary report, EAD issues a final investigation report that sets forth EAD's final determinations, based on a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) standard, regarding whether the respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy. (Id. at 119). The final investigation report contains a summary of the information and documents on which it is based and addresses, "to the extent EAD considers appropriate," any comments received from the complainant or respondent on the preliminary report. (Id.). The parties' comments to the preliminary investigation report are also appended to the final investigation report. (Id.). When the respondent is determined to have engaged in the conduct for which the respondent was charged, the final investigation report will also be forwarded to the appropriate person for sanctioning, referral, or follow-up - in the case of a student respondent, the Director of Student Accountability. (Id.).
If the EAD has determined that a respondent violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy, "Student Accountability will review EAD's final investigation report and will render an appropriate sanction." (Id. at 121). The sanctioning determination is made "based on the information contained in the EAD investigative report, with particular regard for the nature of the incident, the respondent's reported cooperation and candor, and the respondent's disciplinary history (if any)." (Id.). The range of sanctions for any student found responsible for sexual assault-intercourse is suspension to expulsion; for sexual assault-contact, dating violence, or the other delineated forms of sexual misconduct the sanctions range from disciplinary probation to expulsion. (Id.).
Either party has the right to appeal a determination by EAD and any sanction rendered by Student Accountability. (Doc. No. 40-1 at 121). Student appeals are decided by a panel of three Appellate Officers for Sexual Misconduct ("Appellate Officers"). (Id.). Appellate Officers are faculty and/or administrators, appointed by the Chancellor (or the Chancellor's designee) for two or three-year terms, who receive annual training on issues involved in sexual misconduct, such as relevant evidence, the appeals process, standards of review, and avoiding actual or perceived conflicts of interest. (Id. at 121-122). A respondent assessed with a sanction may submit a written appeal petition within ten days of the date the complainant and respondent are notified of the sanction. (Id. at 122). The petition must include a statement of the grounds for appeal, a supporting explanation, and copies of, or reference to, all information not previously submitted to the EAD that the petitioner wishes the Appellate Officers to consider. (Id.).
There are only four limited grounds for appeal, however, and "new" information will only be considered in the limited context of those contentions. The possible grounds for appeal are:
a. Procedural irregularities sufficient to affect the determination or sanction;1
b. The evidence does not support the determination;2
c. New evidence that was not reasonably available for presentation to EAD, the introduction of which could reasonably be expected to affect EAD's determination;3 or
d. Severity of the sanction imposed by Student Accountability.4
(Doc. No. 40-1 at 122-23). As part of the appeal process, the petition is sent to the Title IX Coordinator, Student Accountability, and the non-petitioning student, and those parties are given an opportunity to submit a written response. (Id. at 123). The petitioning student may then reply. (Id.).
The Appellate Officers then proceed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial