Rossley v. Drake University, No. 18-3258 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After Drake University and its Board of Trustees expelled plaintiff for sexually assaulting a female student, plaintiff filed suit for violations of Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities (ADA), as well as claims related to breach of contract. On appeal, plaintiff challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment on his Title IX claim based on an erroneous outcome theory, his ADA claim, and his breach of implied duty of good faith and promissory estoppel claims.
After determining that the court had jurisdiction to review plaintiff's appeal, the court held that there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether being male was a motivating factor for plaintiff's expulsion from Drake; Drake's Code of Student Conduct and Policy on Sexual and Interpersonal Misconduct processes, although not equivalent to those provided in nonacademic settings, are not reflective of gender bias, either in statement or in application; the hearing panel did not reach decisions contrary to the weight of the evidence; and the pressure that was being put on Drake to investigate and adjudicate Title IX complaints by females against males does not appear to have approached that described in Doe v. University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, 974 F.3d at 865, nor was it combined with the clearly irregular investigative and adjudicative processes that were found to support a prima facie claim of sex discrimination in Doe v. Columbia University, 831 F.3d at 56-57, and in Menaker v. Hofstra University, 935 F.3d 20, 35 (2nd Cir. 2019).
The court rejected plaintiff's ADA claim and affirmed the district court's ruling that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding plaintiff's need for accommodations. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for breach of implied duty of good faith and promissory estoppel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Drake and remanded with instructions to dismiss with prejudice the claims that had previously been dismissed without prejudice by stipulation.
Court Description: [Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Title IX. There was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rossley's being a male was a motivating factor in defendant's decision to expel him; the defendant's Code of Student Conduct and Policy on Sexual and Interpersonal Misconduct processes were not reflective of gender bias, either in statement or application; the hearing panel's decision that Rossley has sexually assaulted the complainant was not contrary to the weight of the evidence and was not tainted by gender bias; the defendant school was not under the kind of pressure to adjudicate Title IX complaints in favor of female victims the court has found improper in prior cases, nor was there evidence of clearly irregular investigative and adjudicative processes found to support a prima facie case of sex discrimination in the court's prior cases; argument that Rossly gave constructive notice of his need for accommodations under the ADA rejected; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Rossley's claims for breach of implied duty of good faith and promissory estoppel.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.