Universities that are mulling whether to destroy evidence in Title IX investigations got an answer last week: Don’t. U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton refused to dismiss a host of claims against Quinnipiac University – including “reckless and wanton misconduct” by university officials – by a student it found responsible for intimate partner violence. The case will now go before a jury.

Judge Arterton also found breach-of-contract and gender-bias claims plausible in the private university’s treatment of  John Doe. Arterton cited two tests in her ruling that sends the case to trial: “erroneous outcome,” meaning the university’s bias led to the wrong finding, and “selective enforcement,” meaning it treated a male differently than a female in response to similar accusations.

Judge Arterton had harsh words for Quinnipiac officials in their alleged handling of evidence in the case. Administrator Mr. Kalagher “shredded all notes” that were taken during the first investigation, in response to Jane’s report. Investigator Ms. Keith, destroyed all those from the second investigation for John’s appeal. These are “at the core of all Doe’s claims,” Arterton wrote: Both officials “should have known not to destroy evidence,” since Kalagher is an attorney and Keith is a former state trooper. The claims met the three qualifications for “adverse inference in spoliation,” or destruction of evidence: “the party who destroyed the evidence was under a duty to preserve it,” it happened with a “culpable state of mind,” and “a reasonable jury might find that the evidence was relevant to the affected party’s claim or defense.”

Quinnipiac treated John’s claims differently, he alleged. After Jane accused him, John tried to report her for harassment: She “repeatedly went back to [John’s] apartment, refused to leave his car and his home, and followed him to his parents’ house in Stamford.” Investigators applied “stereotypical gender roles” to each party’s claims, supporting “an inference of gender discrimination,” John said. They accepted Jane’s claims that she feared John, but not his fear of her. Judge Atherton agreed with John that the university used an incorrect and more broad definition of “intimate partner violence” at his hearing, while using the more precise version at Jane’s.  Arterton’s ruling notably allows John’s 29 alleged areas of breach of contract to move to trial. She cited the destruction of interview notes, which may suggest Quinnipiac’s decision was “tainted by gender bias.” Even John’s claim on the “breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing” will move forward.

The Title IX Grievance Committee turned in sloppy work, the judge continued. The record is “notably devoid of written materials” that show its “reasoning process in reaching the findings” against John. Arterton said the committee’s two-page findings letter contrasted with the hundreds of pages in the investigation report and John’s notes.

thecollegefix-Ethan Berman

Share this:

Barring a settlement, sex discrimination lawsuits against Grinnell College and Quinnipiac University appear to be headed to trial after judges in each case denied the school’s motion for summary judgment on both sex discrimination and breach of contract claims. The evidence in both cases reveals a concerning disregard for fundamental fairness, one that both courts felt raised serious questions for a jury about whether these schools breached some of their most basic obligations to students.

Doe v. Grinnell College: The plaintiff in this case, John Doe, was expelled from Grinnell after two women alleged that he had nonconsensual sexual contact with them. Doe alleged that, in the course of its disciplinary proceedings, the college discriminated against him on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX. He brought his Title IX claim under an “erroneous outcome” theory, which requires him to demonstrate both that (1) there was “articulable doubt” as to the accuracy of the college’s finding and (2) that gender bias was a “motivating factor” behind the inaccuracy.

Doe v. Quinnipiac University: This case involves a romantic relationship in which both parties — the plaintiff John Doe and his ex-girlfriend Jane Roe — made allegations of intimate partner violence against each other. Doe was found responsible and punished; Jane Roe was not. The judge was particularly troubled by the fact that two Quinnipiac administrators involved in Doe’s case destroyed their investigation and hearing notes, which Doe believes contain evidence pointing to gender bias as a motivating factor in the outcome of the proceedings.

 It is quite significant for a court to hold, after reviewing the evidence, that a university may have engaged in deliberate sex discrimination and breached its contract with a student. For courts to hold that in two separate cases in the span of just two days illustrates the magnitude of the due process crisis on campus right now.

thefire– Samantha Harris

Share this: