Doe V. The University Of Mississippi Et Al

Case Background

On March 05, 2018, Andrew Doe filed a Title IX lawsuit against the University of Mississippi for gender discrimination in a sexual assault investigation. The case was filed in the United States District Court, Mississippi Southern (Northern Jackson). The case was assigned to Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III, and referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris. [Case number: 3:18cv138]

Cause

In November 2016, Andrew Doe and Bethany Roe, both University of Mississippi students, met through a mutual friend. On November 8, Roe invited Doe to her sorority formal, and he accepted. Before the event, Doe texted Roe to arrange a meeting at a pregame party, to which she provided an address and mentioned bringing her own alcohol. They attended the formal together and enjoyed the evening.

Weeks later, Doe invited Roe to his fraternity’s Christmas party, which she eagerly accepted. Roe helped Doe find dates for his fraternity brothers and agreed to attend a pregame party. Before the event, Doe asked Roe about her drink preference, and she chose vodka.

On December 2, 2016, Roe and Doe went to the pregame party and then to the fraternity party. Afterward, they took a cab to Doe’s apartment, where they kissed in the backseat. Roe did not object to going to his apartment. Upon arrival, they attempted to clean up broken glass from a champagne bottle and continued kissing. Roe initiated further physical contact, and the two eventually engaged in consensual sexual activity. At no point did Roe indicate she wanted to stop or seemed uncomfortable.

Afterward, Roe left to meet her friends, and the two kissed goodbye. The next day, a friend of Roe’s roommate contacted the police, claiming Roe had been assaulted. When questioned, both Roe and Doe explained the encounter was consensual.

The University later conducted an investigation. Despite exculpatory evidence and statements from the taxi driver and a polygraph examination, the University proceeded with a hearing that led to Doe’s expulsion. The decision lacked proper due process, and Doe appealed. The University later reduced the expulsion to a suspension.

Damages

Andrew Doe requested a trial by jury and sought several forms of relief. He asked the Court to issue a declaratory judgment confirming that the Defendants violated Title IX, University policies, and practices, both in intent and application. He also claimed violations of his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and a breach of contract. Doe sought an injunction to prevent further violations of his rights, removal of disciplinary findings from his records, and a halt to future disciplinary actions until the matter was resolved. He requested permanent expungement and sealing of the Title IX proceedings. Doe also asked the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce its order. He sought monetary relief exceeding the Court’s jurisdictional limits, as well as costs and attorney’s fees. Lastly, he requested any additional relief the Court deemed just and equitable.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Andrew Doe
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): J. Lawson Hester | Michelle Tolle High
  • Defendant(s): The University of Mississippi
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): J. Cal Mayo, Jr | John Andrew Mauldin | Paul B. Watkins, Jr.

Claims

Count One: Violation of Title IX

Andrew Doe alleged that the University of Mississippi violated Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funds. As a recipient of such funds, the University was obligated to ensure that its programs were free from gender bias. Title IX bars disciplinary actions influenced by gender.

Doe asserted that the University’s investigation and disciplinary process demonstrated bias, creating an unfair outcome. The investigation ignored exculpatory evidence and favored the female student. The disciplinary process targeted male students, especially in alcohol-related cases, presuming their guilt.

The University’s failure to train staff properly and provide a fair hearing further violated Title IX. As a result, Doe suffered harm, including a damaged reputation, loss of educational opportunities, and unjust disciplinary actions.

Count Two: Violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

Doe claimed that the University violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the right to education and protection of reputation. He argued that the investigation was biased and that he was denied fair procedures. The University’s policies were unconstitutional, and the Defendants failed to address known flaws.

Count Three: Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

Doe alleged that the University violated his constitutional rights by applying gender-biased policies in Title IX investigations and disciplinary proceedings. He claimed that, despite mutual consent in his encounter with Bethany Roe, he was unfairly presumed guilty, while Roe faced no consequences. He seeks justice for the unequal treatment.

Count Four: Breach of Contract

Doe further alleged that the University breached its contract by failing to provide him with access to education and a degree. The University’s failure to follow its own policies and Title IX provisions caused harm, including emotional distress and loss of educational opportunities. If no express contract is found, Doe plans to pursue a breach of implied contract claim.

Defense

The University presented substantial evidence to support its decision to expel. It also denied any gender bias in the process. Additionally, the defense argued that Andrew Doe had failed to mitigate his damages by not returning to college.

Jury Verdict

The case went to trial more than seven years after the expulsion. The trial lasted four days. The instructions focused on whether the University had discriminated against Doe in violation of his Title IX rights. On August 16, 2024, the jury responded with “no” and did not address the issue of damages or mitigation.

Court Documents:

Available for purchase upon request