John Does 1-2 v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, No. 19-2552 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs, ten former University of Minnesota football players, appealed the dismissal of their Amended Complaint against the University and two University officials, asserting a variety of claims arising out of the University’s investigation of a complaint of sexual assault and harassment by another student, Jane Doe. Plaintiffs are African-American males who alleged that the University targeted them on the basis of their sex and race and unfairly punished them in response to Jane's accusations. The district court dismissed all claims.
The Eighth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' complaint alleged a number of circumstances which, taken together, are sufficient to support a plausible claim that the University discriminated against plaintiffs on the basis of sex. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the University was biased against them because of external pressures from the campus community and the federal government, and plaintiffs alleged historical facts that reinforce the inference of bias in this specific proceeding. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Title IX discrimination claims.
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Title IX claims for retaliation where plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that their request for a Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee hearing was tantamount to a complaint of sex discrimination, and even if a request for a hearing made by a person accused of sexual misconduct could amount to protected activity, the Amended Complaint did not plausibly plead prima facie retaliation claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the race discrimination claims where the Amended Complaint did not plausibly allege a comparator similarly situated to plaintiffs in all relevant aspects; affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' due process claims where plaintiffs failed to exhaust the existing procedures for appealing the University's disciplinary decision and failed to allege prehearing deprivations or deprivation of protected property or liberty interests in violation of due process; and affirmed the dismissal of the contract and negligence claims on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Chief Judge Smith and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Title IX. Ten former University of Minnesota football players (Does) appeal the dismissal of their complaint against the university and university officials, asserting sex and race discrimination claims and other constitutional violations arising from the university's investigation of a complaint of sexual assault and harassment by another student. To assert a claim under Title IX, the Does must allege adequately that the university disciplined them on the basis of sex. Because the complaint alleges circumstances which, taken together, are sufficient to support a plausible claim that the university discriminated against the Does on the basis of sex, the dismissal of the Title IX claim is reversed. Allegations of pressures from the university officials, the Department of Education's "Dear Colleague" letter, and public attention, raise a plausible claim of sex discrimination and the complaint raised a reasonable inference of bias against male students. The complaint does not plausibly allege their request for a hearing was tantamount to sex discrimination and did not state a claim for retaliation. The race discrimination claims failed for failure to allege a comparator was similarly situated and treated differently. The procedural due process claims failed for failure to exhaust state remedies relating to predeprivation process or a failure by some to allege a deprivation of protected property or liberty interest. The court correctly dismissed the due process claims. The district court properly dismissed the breach of contract and negligence claims on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
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.