Doe v. University of Southern Indiana

Dist. Ct, did not err in denying plaintiff-student’s request for issuance of preliminary injunction in plaintiff’s action, alleging that defendant-University violated Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972 by discriminating against him on basis of his gender, when it suspended him for three semesters after it had sustained female student’s complaint that accused plaintiff of sexual assault. Plaintiff failed to present any direct evidence of sex discrimination, and Ct. of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s claim that: (1) defendant had anti-male bias against him due to public pressure to find in favor of female student, where defendant took significant steps to insulate itself from public pressure by using independent contractors to investigate and generate findings on said charge; and (2) certain procedural irregularities produced flawed grievance process, where plaintiff’s alleged irregularities either were non-errors, or errors that benefited both plaintiff and female student, or errors that were invited by plaintiff or did not demonstrate anti-male bias. Also, committee’s suspension decision was supported by preponderance of evidence, where plaintiff’s version of facts contained significant inconsistency, while female student’s version of facts contain corroboration in two significant ways. As such, failure to issue preliminary injunction was appropriate, where plaintiff could not show likelihood of success on merits of his claim.