Doe v. University of Arkansas - Fayetteville, No. 19-1842 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, a former student at the University, filed suit against the Board of Trustees and several university officials, claiming that they violated his rights in a disciplinary action against him. This case stemmed from another University student's accusation against plaintiff for sexual assault. After the initial decision by the Title IX coordinator finding no misconduct, the other student herself publicly criticized the University's decision. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the University was under pressure and fearful of sanctions from the Office for Civil Rights, so it took steps harmful to him to alleviate and lessen the scrutiny that it was attracting from the other student's media blitz and protests. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Eighth Circuit held that the complaint stated a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that is plausible on its face. First, the allegations in the complaint support an inference that the hearing panel reached an outcome that was against the substantial weight of the evidence. Second, the panel's chosen sanctions are allegedly contrary to the ordinary disposition in cases of sexual assault by force. Third, plaintiff alleged that the University was under pressure on multiple fronts to find males responsible for sexual assault. The court held that these circumstances, taken together, are sufficient to support a plausible claim that the University discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex. However, the court held that plaintiff's due process claims against the University officials in their official and individual capacities were properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Title IX. Doe stated a claim that the University discriminated against him on the basis of sex, and the district court erred in dismissing his Title IX claim; first, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the hearing panel which disciplined Doe reached an outcome that was against the weight of the evidence; second, the panel's chosen sanctions are allegedly contrary to the ordinary disposition in cases of sexual assault by force; third, Doe alleged the University was under pressure on multiple fronts to find males responsible for sexual assaults; these circumstances, taken together, are sufficient to support a plausible claim that the University discriminated against Doe on the basis of sex; Does has not stated a claim under the Due Process Clause against the officials in their official or individual capacities, and those claims were properly dismissed.
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.