RULING: Judge Approves ‘Wanton and Reckless Misconduct’ Claim Against Quinnipiac For TitleIX Investigation
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
