John Doe v. University of Iowa, et al.

A university decision-maker admitted using ‘sex’ as one of the three factors in evaluating an accused student’s credibility, resulting in expulsion. The Eighth Circuit granted summary judgment on Title IX without applying the mixed-motive or burden-shifting frameworks, conflicting with the Tenth and Second Circuits, which used Title VII standards {Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 1 F.4th 822, 829 (10th Cir. 2021); Doe v. Co­ lumbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46,56 (2d Cir. 2016)). In grant­ ing summary judgment, the panel again focused on undefined “context,” as in Smothers v. Rowley Masonic Assisted Living Cmty., 63 F.4th 721, 728 (8th Cir. 2023), conflicting with holdings that “some evidence” of sex as a motivating factor suffices for a prima facie case (Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 1 F.4th 822, 836 (10th Cir. 2021); Doe v. William Marsh Rice Univ., 67 F.4th 702, 726 (5th Cir. 2023)), and diverging from the Sec­ ond Circuit’s emphasis on the jury evaluating context (Sassaman v. Gamache, 566 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2009)). This case also raises due process requirements in university disciplinary proceedings. The Sixth Circuit in Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 581 (6th Cir. 2018), and the U.S. Department of Education’s 2020 Title IX reg­ ulations, relying on Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), require cross-examination through an advisor. Here, the adjudicator exercised discretion by refusing to ask material questions requested by the petitioner, falsely reported asking all questions, applied dispar­ ate standards, and found the petitioner responsible for the conduct of a separate charge without notice. Un­ clear procedural requirements jeopardize nearly 19 million students’ rights. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Title VII’s mixed-motive analysis ap­ plies to Title IX claims when a decision-maker