In the case of Doe v. Oberlin College, N.D.Ohio No. 1:20-cv-0669 (June 16, 2023), a federal district court held that the male student’s claims for Title IX selective enforcement violation and breach of contract could proceed past the motion for judgment on the pleading stage when the college investigated the intoxicated male student but not the intoxicated female student potentially in violation of the college’s sexual misconduct policy.
In this case, the male student argued that (1) both the male and female students were intoxicated but the male student was treated differently because of the male student’s sex when the college failed to initiate proceedings under the college’s sexual misconduct policy against both students; (2) the college breached an implied contract between the male student and the college when the college failed to comply with the college’s sexual misconduct policy; and (3) the college was negligent. In response, the college argued that (1) the male and female students were not similarly situated; (2) there was no contract between the male student and the college; and (3) the negligence claim was the same as the breach of contract claim. The federal district court agreed with the male student on the Title IX and breach of contract claims and with the college on the negligence claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the male student regarding the Title IX claim, the federal district court explained that the male and female students may have been similarly situated if they were equally intoxicated when the alleged sexual misconduct took place.
In support of its decision in favor of the male student regarding the breach of contract claim, the federal district court explained that a student may raise breach of contract claims arising from a university’s alleged failure to comply with its rules governing disciplinary proceedings.
In support of its decision in favor of the college on the negligence claim, the federal district court explained that the male student did not explain how the negligence claim was independent from the breach of contract claim.
To read this case, click here.
NOTE: This opinion was decided on whether the claims could survive the motion for judgment on the pleading and the final outcome could be drastically different.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.