Doe v. William Marsh Rice Univ.
| Decision Date | 16 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4: 20-cv-2985 |
| Parties | JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM MARSH RICE UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Pending before the Court is Defendant William Marsh Rice University's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Instrument No 61).
Plaintiff John Doe ("Plaintiff), a former student and football player at Defendant William Marsh Rice University (the "University") brings a Title IX discrimination claim alleging that the University's investigation of his conduct was motivated by "an anti-male discriminatory bias." (Instrument No. 1 at 7). Additionally, Plaintiff brings a breach of contract claim alleging that the University breached its contract when it failed to conduct a fair and impartial disciplinary process during its investigation of Plaintiffs conduct. (Instrument No. 1 at 33). Based on his claims, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201. (Instrument No. 1 at 1, 22).
In Fall 2017, Plaintiff was a freshman football athlete at the University. (Instruments No.61 at 3; No. 79 at 4). Prior to attending the University, Plaintiff was diagnosed with herpes. (Instruments No. 63 at 144-147). In Fall 2017 Plaintiff began a relationship and engaged in multiple, unprotected sexual encounters with University student Jane Roe ("Roe"). (Instruments No. 61 at 3; No. 79 at 4, 6). In early December 2017, Roe and Plaintiffs relationship ended the day after they had a sexual encounter. (Instruments No. 61 at 3; No. 79 at 6).
On or about December 14, 2017, Roe visited the University's Student Health Services and received a preliminary diagnosis of herpes. (Instrument No. 63 at 13). On or about December 14, 2017, Roe and Plaintiff discussed via text messages, Roe's preliminary herpes diagnosis, Plaintiffs herpes status, and the life-long implications of contracting herpes. (Instrument No. 63 at 22-28). Roe informed Plaintiff that she believed she contracted Herpes from him. (Instrument No. 63 at 22-28). Plaintiff confirmed that he contracted herpes "a long time ago." (Instrument No. 63 at 25). Plaintiff further responded "Yes" when asked by Roe if he had known he "had herpes this entire time and didn't tell [Roe] until now." (Instrument No. 63 at 26).
On December 15, 2017, Roe spoke with the University's Cathryn Councill ("Councill") and alleged that she became infected with herpes after having a consensual sexual encounter with another University student. (Instrument No. 63 at 13). Roe reported that this University student failed to inform her that he had herpes prior to their sexual encounter. (Instrument No. 63 at 13). Roe inquired about how to make a report through the University's Student Judicial Programs ("SIP"). Id.
On or about December 18, 2017, Roe filed a report with the Rice University Police Department ("RUPD" or "Police") alleging that a University student, Plaintiff, failed to inform her that he had herpes prior to them engaging in unprotected sex. (Instrument No. 63 at 14). On December 19, 2017, Roe requested that the University Police file criminal charges against Plaintiff. (Instrument No. 63 at 19). On or about February 1, 2018, the State's ADA Sarah Nayland declined to pursue charges, because the State could not "prove that the Defendant [Plaintiff] intended to cause the Complainant [Roe] pain . . . Specifically, the State cannot prove that the Defendant [Plaintiff] intended to spread herpes to the Complainant [Roe]." (Instrument No. 63 at 17).
On January 30, 2018, Roe met with the University's SJP. (Instrument No. 63 at 21). On February 12, 2018, Roe submitted a written complaint to SJP. (Instrument No. 63 at 21, 30). In her complaint, she alleged that Plaintiff failed to inform her that he had or still had herpes during their relationship. (Instrument No. 63 at 21). On February 13, 2018, the Director of the University's SJP, Emily Garza ("Garza") emailed Plaintiff forbidding contact with Roe and scheduling a February 14th meeting with him to discuss "a disciplinary matter." (Instruments No. 61 at 3; No. 63 at 31).
On February 14, 2018, Plaintiffs then-attorney called Garza and informed her that Plaintiff would not be attending the meeting that day. (Instrument No. 63 at 33). After this phone call, Plaintiff sent Garza an email asking to reschedule the meeting. (Instrument No. 63 at 32). On the same day, Garza sent a charge letter to Plaintiff (1) notifying him of the disciplinary charges filed against him under the University's Code of Student Conduct (hereafter referred to as the "Code" or "University's Code"), (2) summarizing the allegations made against him by Roe, and (3) explaining the University's next steps. (Instrument No. 63 at 33-36). In the charge letter, Garza indicated that she was investigating whether Plaintiff violated the Code's Section II. B.l.a, which prohibits "intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict mental or bodily harm on any person ... taking reckless disregard, from which mental or bodily harm could result to any person" and expressed concern that his conduct "may qualify as dating violence" under the Sexual Misconduct Policy. (Instrument No. 63 at 35). In the letter, Plaintiff was informed that he had until February 21, 2018 to respond to the charge letter. Id. SJP later extended his response deadline to March 6, 2018. (Instrument No. 63 at 109).
On February 14, 2018, the University's Dean Donald Ostdiek ("Dean Ostdiek") sent Plaintiff a letter notifying him that he was placed on an interim suspension immediately pursuant to the Code's Section 1. E.l and 1 E.2. (Instrument No. 63 at 37). The letter indicates that the University suspended Plaintiff in order to protect the University community and because of Plaintiffs "choice not to participate in the Rice processes." Id. Additionally, the letter states that Plaintiff previously "declined to participate with RUPD in their investigation." (Instrument No. 63 at 37). The letter also indicates that the interim suspension would be reviewed after Plaintiff engaged in the University's investigation process. Id.
On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a written response to Roe's complaint. (Instrument No. 63 at 112-115). In his response, Plaintiff alleged that early in their relationship he and Roe discussed that he had a "run-in" with herpes in high school and contracted chlamydia at the University. (Instrument No. 63 at 112). Plaintiff stated that in high school, he was diagnosed with the HSV-1 type of herpes. Id. Plaintiff alleged that he had not had "herpes outbreaks or symptoms" since high school. (Instrument No. 63 at 113). Plaintiff also alleged that Roe may have contracted herpes from several other students. Id. Plaintiff furthered alleged that he never lied about his "sexual history or STD's."(Instrument No. 63 at 115).
On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff and his support person, his then-attorney met with Garza. (Instrument No. 63 at 9). On the same day, the University notified Plaintiff that he may attend classes since he was participating in its investigation process. (Instrument No. 63 at 116).
On April 17, 2018, Garza issued a Decision Letter summarizing the investigation, evidence, conclusions, and the parties' conflicting statements. (Instrument No. 63 at 142-149). During the investigation, Garza gathered and then considered the following information: Roe's written complaint, Plaintiffs written response to the University's charge, Roe and Plaintiffs text and Snapchat messages, Roe's medical records, the University's Police report, and her recordings of the separate meetings with Plaintiff and Roe. (Instruments No. 61 at 4; No. 63 at 142-149). Based on the preponderance of evidence standard Garza concluded that Plaintiff violated the University's Code, but that his behavior did not violate the Sexual Misconduct Policy. (Instrument No. 63 at 143). First, the report states that based on the evidence, (Instrument No. 63 at 142-143). Garza noted that when students give conflicting statements, she considers other information such as text messages. (Instrument No. 63 at 147). Second, the reports states, " (Instrument No. 63 at 147). Third, the report states that Plaintiffs disclosure did not meet the "high expectations of civility and respect for others ... as described in the Code of Student Conduct." Id. Fourth, the report states while Roe "acknowledges that you mentioned a history with herpes early in the relationship, she [Roe] was never informed of the details of the disease, the long-term effects, or how it spread." Id. Fifth, the reports states, "Your text messages to her also reinforce that the previous face to face conversation was insufficient to reach a clear conclusion or understanding." (Instrument No. 63 at 147-148). As a result of these finding, Plaintiff was disciplined with "rustication." (Instrument No. 63 at 148). Rustication -permitted Plaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial