Eleventh Circuit: John Doe v. Samford University, et al.

Errors in university investigation could be attributed to ineptitude, inexperience, and pro-complainant bias, and therefore don't raise a plausible inference sufficient to state a claim of discrimination on the basis of gender.

CONCURRENCE:

When resolving a motion to dismiss, a court must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant.

John Doe v. Samford University, et al.

Ninth Circuit: Freyd v. University of Oregon

 As the comparison of duties between privately funded and federally funded research academics is fraught with judgment, not law, their equivalence is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

The standard under the state law is broader than the federal standard, reasoning from the greater, there is an issue for trial on the state claims as well.

As plaintiff in disparate impact claim wasn't challenging thempe practice of retention raises, but additionally suggesting that the salaries of the cohort be raised as well, it is an attack on a specific process, not general one.  The existence of an alternative undercuts the claim of business necessity.

Although statistics derived from small sample size have less probative value, disagreement among experts as to the validity of the numbers can suggests a triable issue.

As the plaintiff never engaged in retention raise negotiations, there is no issue for trial on state and federal disparate treatment claims or Title IX.  Insufficient evidence of intentional discrimination for state ERA claim.

DISSENT:

Equal Pay Act requires a case-specific examination of the actual job performance and content.

Full Professors are like professional athletes.  Significant differences in all of the jobs for the members of the plaintiff's department.

State claim only requires a common core of tasks, which presents an issue for trial.

Retention negotiations are elective -- each professor chooses to engage or not. Small sample size.  The practice is a business necessity.

Freyd v. University of Oregon

Sixth Circuit: John Doe v. David Baum

Where the facts are in dispute and there are competing narratives of events, due process requires that public universities allow either the accused student of his or her representative directly to question the accuser.

A judicial proceeding in which everyone of one gender is believed and all those of the other gender are disbelieved states a claim under Title IX.

Concurrence -- Title IX violation states a claim; some grounds for the claim improperly excluded by this holding, as they're more appropriate to the summary judgment standard.

Dissent -- Due Process right to confront the witness can be vindicated by written questions.  Insufficient particularized causal connection for Title IX claims.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0200p-06.pdf

First Circuit: Doe v. Brown University

Allegation of assault against a student at one university by students at a second university does not state a Title IX claim against the second university where the alleged victim has not and does not intend to avail himself or herself of the educational programs and services of the second university.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1941P-01A.pdf

Third Circuit: Joel Doe v. Boyertown Area School District

Use of school privacy facilities by transgender students doesn't present a Title IX claim for non-transgender students in the room, as the policy is of equal applicability to both sexes. 

Insufficient injury for state tort claim.

Denial of preliminary injunction was appropriate, given mitigation in place during the litigation.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173113p.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Patricia Campbell v. EDU-HI

Employer's loss of a performance report is not, by itself, an adverse employment action. 

Investigation of employee that did not affect her working conditions was not an adverse employment action; the suggestion that others were placed on paid leave while under investigation did not make the continued conditions of employment an adverse action.

Denial of transfer not adverse, since application was untimely.

Music and dance teacher did not establish that classes other than remedial math were available to teach; the assignment therefore was not an adverse one.

Lack of comparators for most claims.

Claim of hostile work environment from student animus is defeated by district's incremental and timely response.

Employer's speech in workplace reasonable.

As no adverse action, no retaliation; actions had sufficient neutral justification.

Standards for Title VII claim identical to Title IX claim.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/11/15-15939.pdf

First Circuit: Doe v. Trustees of Boston College

State contractual guarantees of good faith and fair dealing apply to a student's relationship with their university; where procedures are published, this duty is displaced by a contractual guarantee of compliance with the stated procedures.

While the school's procedures were generally in accord with the published rule, possibly prejudicial ex parte communications during the tribunal's deliberations present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Despite plaintiff's indications of intent to file a lawsuit, an email from an officer of the deft promising an independent investigation did not create a binding contract, as plaintiff never evinced a willingness to strike a deal -- there was no consideration.

Statistics alone can't establish a Title IX claim on the outcome or for deliberate indifference; the specific mechanism of discriminatory action needed to be identified.

Procedural unfairness in student disciplinary decisions sounds in contract, not tort.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2290P-01A.pdf

DC Circuit: Ayanna Blue v. District of Columbia

S1983, Title IX

A municipality's retention of an employee after an offense does not establish that the municipality is liable under S1983 for similar offenses.

Allegation of insufficient screening is not enough to state a claim for S1983.

As there was no actual notice of improper relationship during the pendency of the relationship, no Title IX violation.

School investigation is not an adequate substitute for notice of claim requirement that requires, at minimum, a written police report.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A69B5A2CB744D2E485257F2A005480B2/$file/14-7189-1590902.pdf