Authors: Patricia Hamill, Lorie Dakessian, Chris Lucca, Lindsay McDonald and Jonathan Cohen
In a lawsuit filed against Vanderbilt University by a male student who was disciplined for spreading rumors about alleged sexual misconduct by another male student, a federal district court allowed the plaintiff to pursue Title IX, contract, and other claims against the university. Plaintiff was one of many students who reposted the rumors on the social media platform Yik Yak, but only he was investigated, charged, or disciplined. The university moved to dismiss the case and the court denied it in part, granted it in part.
Notably, the court allowed a Title IX selective enforcement claim based on allegations that the university had refused to take any action against female students who had been identified as engaging in the same conduct. Plaintiff alleged he had asked a Title IX official if the school would take action against females who spread false sexual assault allegations, and the official responded that the school would not, “because it would be ‘Anti-MeToo.’” When Vanderbilt argued, among other things, that the female students were not similarly situated to plaintiff because it did not open a formal complaint against them, the court said this missed the point: the university decided to investigate and charge plaintiff but not the female students, “selectively exclud[ing] the two female posters from this preliminary stage of the procedure.” The university “cannot argue with any credibility that the female posters were not similarly situated to [plaintiff] at a later stage of the procedure simply because the alleged act of discrimination excluded those same women at an earlier stage.” The court also rejected the university’s argument that plaintiff had not shown the female students’ conduct was sufficiently similar to his “(e.g., with regard to number of posts, content of posts, timespan of posts, etc.).” Plaintiff did not need to specify the exact number and content of posts to state a selective enforcement claim.
The court also allowed plaintiff to pursue other claims, including:
- Contract claims based on allegations that plaintiff was deprived of his rights to receive timely notice, to access and challenge incriminating information, to call witnesses, and to have unbiased decision makers; “that the appeal was tainted by irregularities stemming from the investigation” (including withholding of information and failure to provide an independent layer of review); that the sanctions were disproportionate; that the university violated plaintiff’s privacy rights when it shared the investigation outcome and sanctions with the student (“Simon Roe”) who was the subject of the rumors; and that the university ignored plaintiff’s complaints that his privacy was being violated (“it flows from logic that, if Vanderbilt has a complaint procedure, then Vanderbilt must do something when someone files a complaint”).
- A retaliation claim under the federal Rehabilitation Act based on allegations that when plaintiff asked for disability accommodations and a leave of absence, an official suggested he withdraw from the university.
- A defamation claim based on the university’s statement in a letter to Simon Roe that “[t]he person who instigated the harassing posts against you has completed our process and has been held accountable.” “[T]he Court finds it plausible that the statement that [plaintiff] ‘instigated the harassing posts’ implies that [plaintiff] instigated all of the posts, including those made by other posters. . . . Accusing someone of instigating false allegations of rape certainly carries the potential of being defamatory. . . . In addition, the FAC clearly alleges that the statement is false . . . .”
- Limited claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the manner in which the university informed plaintiff of the findings against him. Plaintiff’s mother had told the university he was at risk of self-harm, and the university nonetheless delivered the outcome letter to him when he was alone. The court ruled that plaintiff’s allegations plausibly established the existence of a duty of care, unrelated to his contract with Vanderbilt, but “rather based upon the existence of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm to him.” “As for the other elements of the negligence claim, [plaintiff] alleges that the Defendants knew of [plaintiff’s] distress and suicidal thoughts and expressed the desire that [plaintiff’s] parents be with him when they deliver the outcome of the investigation, noting that ‘it will likely be rough.’ . . . Demonstrating an astonishing, shameful detachment from the gravity of the situation, [one official] allegedly emailed [another official] before the delivery of the outcome, stating ‘[t]he parents better have flown out there. [L]ol.’ . . . ‘After being informed Plaintiff’s parents were not with them [sic], the outcome was nonetheless delivered to Plaintiff.’”
Poe v. Lowe, No. 3:24-CV-00368, 2024 WL 4778042 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2024). Unfortunately for plaintiff, however, the court, in a separate opinion, denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed under pseudonym. 2024 WL 4678470 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 1, 2024).
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.