Third Circuit Restores Student’s Title IX Sex Bias Claim Over Discipline

00:00

24:53

Quick Hits

• The Third Circuit recently signified a different approach than other circuits in evaluating cases alleging Title IX sex discrimination than do other circuits at the motion to dismiss stage.
• The Third Circuit clarified that the “straightforward pleading standard” it applies to Title IX claims at the motion to dismiss stage is whether the “alleged facts, if true, support a plausible inference that a federally funded college or university discriminated against a person on the basis of sex.” The court’s standard differs from that of other circuit courts that apply doctrinal tests, such as erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, or deliberate indifference.
• The court recognized that its standard required more than the one used by the Second Circuit, which the opinion described as “requiring only facts supporting a minimalplausible inference of discriminatory intent.”

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in colleges and universities that receive federal funding.

Applying its “plausible inference standard” in Doe v. Princeton University, the Third Circuit found that the total mix of allegations in the complaint alleged a plausible inference of sex discrimination sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Background on the Case

The lawsuit was brought by a male student, referred to as John Doe, who received a two-year suspension under the university’s disciplinary policy for violations of its Public Safety Policy, after he was accused by two women (a student and her friend who was not a Princeton student) of choking them in March 2023 and April 2023.

Subsequently, Doe filed an internal appeal on the grounds that the disciplinary procedures were not “fair and reasonable,” and the penalty did not “fall within the range of penalties imposed for similar misconduct.” He argued that Princeton’s investigator treated male and female witnesses differently, and that the hearing was improperly rushed. Princeton’s appeal panel denied the appeal.

Then Doe sued Princeton, alleging sex discrimination under Title IX, as well as breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and gross negligence under New Jersey state law. He claimed there was sex-based pressure on Princeton to favor women accusing men of assault. He claimed the university failed to consider testimony from a male student at a different university, who said one of Doe’s accusers also made false choking accusations against him. Doe also argued that, during the hearing, the committee prejudged him as responsible and interpreted all discrepancies and inconsistencies in the accusers’ favor. (In the Title IX context, a respondent can be determined to be responsible, based on an evaluation of all the evidence, using either the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence standard. Notwithstanding, until an investigation has concluded, a respondent is presumed not responsible.) One professor on the committee fell asleep during the hearing.

On April 28, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed Doe’s claims. It concluded that Doe’s arguments did not show that Princeton’s disciplinary process reflected bias against men. “None of [the] plaintiff’s allegations about the investigation or adjudication support a plausible inference that the university discriminated against him based on sex,” the court stated. It rejected Doe’s arguments that the investigation was unfair and that the university breached his contract by not following its own established procedures for internal investigations and hearings.

Third Circuit’s Ruling

The Third Circuit reversed the district court. Initially, the court observed that Title IX applied to Doe’s claims, even though the university used its public safety policy to assess discipline, rather than its sexual misconduct policy. The court noted that “[u]niversities cannot insulate themselves from Title IX liability by recharacterizing disciplinary complaints that, on their face, indicate the alleged misconduct is of a sexual nature and adjudicating those charges under disciplinary policies with lower procedural protections for respondents.”

The court concluded that the “total mix” of allegations in Doe’s complaint were sufficient to support an inference of sex discrimination, if proven true. “The complaint alleges a series of procedural irregularities—including an imbalanced investigation and hearing, gender-based credibility determinations, and a decision against the weight of the evidence—that are commonly recognized in case law as indicative of gender bias, as well as statements evincing prejudgment by the decision-makers,” it stated. The court held that the same evidence supported Doe’s breach of contract claims.

The court rejected any requirement that plaintiffs use one of the specific doctrinal tests that other circuits have used to classify Title IX theories, including erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, or deliberate indifference. Rather, it ruled that plaintiffs remain “free to characterize their claims however they wish.”

Key Takeaways

This Third Circuit opinion is important in that it sets forth and clarifies the standards for stating sex discrimination claims, regardless of whether underlying discipline was handled under policies prohibiting sexual misconduct or harassment on campus or under other procedures. The Third Circuit recognized the challenge that universities face in balancing the interests of students who report misconduct and those of students accused of misconduct. The court stated that these interests “can coexist when universities employ fair disciplinary procedures to seek truth and accountability.” According to the court, universities must “accommodate both the vital protection of victims’ rights and the essential fairness owed to respondents.”

Whether following Title IX sexual misconduct policies or other disciplinary policies, universities can expect plaintiffs to bring claims alleging sex discrimination under Title IX. Under the Third Circuit’s “plausible inference” standard, such claims may be difficult to dispose of at the motion to dismiss stage.

Title IX is a heavily regulated area, so schools may want to ensure they continuously review and follow both school procedures and regulatory requirements. Conducting a fair investigation and consistently enforcing university policies may reduce the risk of sex discrimination lawsuits. Unbalanced application of disciplinary decisions may create additional liability under Title IX.

Ogletree Deakins’ Higher Education Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Delaware, Higher Education, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Workplace Investigations and Organizational Assessments blogs as additional information becomes available.

Karen Baillie is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Pittsburgh office.

Stesha A. Emmanuel is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Boston office and also practices in Rhode Island.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts