Doe v. Rollins Coll.

77 F.4th 1340

John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. ROLLINS COLLEGE, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant.

No. 21-11081

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Filed: August 14, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 6:18-cv-01069-RBD-LRH.

Joshua Adam Engel, Anne Tamashasky, Engel & Martin, LLC, Mason, OH, Bertha Burruezo, Attorney at Law, Orlando, FL, Carlos Juan Burruezo, Burruezo & Burruezo, PLLC, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Mark G. Alexander, Samantha Giudici Berdecia, Kelly L. DeGance, Alexander DeGance Barnett, PA, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Before Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Newsom, Circuit Judges.

Jordan, Circuit Judge:

Jane Roe, a student at Rollins College, accused John Doe, a fellow student, of sexual assault. Following an investigation, Rollins determined that Doe violated its sexual misconduct policy. Doe was able to graduate and receive his undergraduate degree but was not allowed to participate in commencement/graduation ceremonies. Rollins imposed a sanction of dismissal, resulting in permanent separation of Doe without the opportunity for readmission; privilege restrictions, including a prohibition on participating in alumni reunion events on or off campus; and a contact restriction as to Roe.

Doe sued Rollins in federal court, asserting two claims under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681—one for selective enforcement and one for erroneous outcome—and a third claim under Florida law for breach of contract. Following discovery, the district court excluded the opinions proffered by Doe's expert as to Rollins' purported gender bias. Then, on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court (a) entered summary judgment in favor of Rollins on the Title IX claims and (b) entered partial summary judgment in favor of Doe on the breach of contract claim.

On the Title IX claims, the district court concluded that there was "no evidence by which a reasonable juror could conclude [that] Rollins['] conduct toward Doe was motivated by his gender." D.E. 156 at 16. On the breach of contract claim, the district court concluded that Doe had shown that Rollins breached a provision of its Title IX sexual misconduct policy stating that the process for resolving a sexual misconduct claim would typically be completed within 60 days. The investigation began in November of 2017, but Rollins did not complete it until March of 2018. See id. at 17.¹

The district court did not enter judgment in favor of Doe on the contract claim because it concluded that a jury had to decide whether Rollins' breach was material and caused harm. See id. at 26-27. The district court also ruled that there were factual questions as to whether Rollins' inquiry into Doe's sexual history was relevant and whether Rollins responded fairly and equitably to Roe's allegations. See id. at 27-28.

After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rollins on the breach of contract claim. The jury found that Rollins' breach of the 60-day provision was not material; that Rollins did not breach a contractual obligation to not have irrelevant prior sexual history considered in the investigation of Roe's allegations; and that Rollins did not breach a contractual obligation to reach a timely and fair resolution of Roe's allegations.

This is Doe's appeal. Following oral argument and a review of the record, we affirm. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding Doe's expert from presenting opinions about Rollins' purported gender bias, and that it correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Rollins on Doe's two Title IX claims. On the breach of contract claim, we cannot review Doe's challenge to the district court's partial denial of summary judgment because materiality is not a pure legal issue under Florida law and was later resolved by the jury. Insofar as Doe contends that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on materiality, we disagree because the evidence on that issue was disputed and the jury could have found that the breach was not material.

I

In his Title IX claims, Doe asserts that Rollins—based on its gender bias—selectively prosecuted him and erroneously found him to be in violation of its sexual misconduct policy. To provide the necessary context for these claims, we set out the different versions of events presented by Roe and Doe.

A

From 2014 to 2017, Doe was a student at Rollins. During that time, he met Roe, another student at Rollins, and the two became friends. They "hung out around campus, did homework" and "spent time together." D.E. 61-4 at 5. On February 17, 2017, Doe invited Roe to his fraternity's "Grab-a-Date" event. The event was "champagne and shackles themed," which meant that dates were "zip-tie[d]" to one another until a shared "bottle of champagne [was] empty." D.E. 61-2, Exh. B at 18. Roe accepted Doe's invitation, and the two went to the event together that evening.

Later, in the early morning hours of February 18, Doe and Roe, along with others from the party, walked to a local bar. Eventually, Doe and Roe left the bar together and went to Doe's room. But Doe's and Roe's recollections of how they ended up at Doe's room, and what happened once there, differ.

Roe stated that her "intention was to go to [her] own room to go to sleep, by [herself], because [she] was incoherently drunk and incredibly tired" but "in between 'blackouts' somehow [she] ended up in [Doe's] dorm and room." Id. at 20-21. She told Doe "multiple times that [she] wanted to leave and just go to bed in [her] own room but [Doe] insisted [they] hang out and to just wait [there in his room] because he had to go to the bathroom." Id. at 21. Roe—"too tired to argue, and too confused to want to go else-where"—saw Doe's couch, laid down, and "fell asleep for what felt like 5 or 10 min[utes]." Id. When Doe returned, he picked a movie and Roe fell asleep again. While Roe was on the couch and as the movie was playing, Doe "started making out with [Roe] and touching [her] near [her] chest/bra area," then "started touching [her] underwear and moved it aside and began penetrating [her] with his finger." Id.

Roe recounted "saying '[n]o' and objecting [to] his advances through multiple parts of the beginning of this assault, but [her] right hand was trapped in the fold of the couch, and [her] left trapped under him as he was on top of [her] and [she] was too tired, dizzy, and intoxicated to do anything other than try to say no." Id. Roe continued to say "no" and fell in and out of sleep. She explained:

As he was touching my thighs I said no, as he was touching my vagina I said no, and as he began penetrating me I said no[.] I do think during these no's I was kissing him (in the sense where kissing means my lips were on his) at this point but I was intoxicated, falling in and out of sleep, and felt as though I was unable to move my own body. I remember seeing his penis out as he was on top of me and my right hand at my sides, trapped between the couch and my body, and my left hand under him, which he was now moving towards his penis as I was saying no. This part of the contact was only for about 4 seconds at most (that my hand was touching his penis).

Id.

According to Roe, Doe asked "what[']s wrong" multiple times and "discouraged [Roe] from leaving when [she] would express that [she] wanted to be in [her] own room." Id. When Doe had "shifted off" of Roe to ask what was wrong, she sat up and "finally stood up in an attempt to get out and head towards the door." Id. at 21-22. Doe "stopped [Roe] and was holding [her] arms and was saying things like 'no, just stay' and 'we don't have to have sex' and 'you can just sleep here' and would keep trying to kiss [Roe] and move [her] over to the bed." Id. at 22. Roe, wanting to go to her own bed, left Doe's room.

Doe provided a very different account of the evening. While at the local bar, he and Roe sat "in the outdoor section" by themselves and "had normal conversation." D.E. 61-2, Exh. C at 26. "It started getting late" and they "decided to return to [his] dorm room . . . to watch a movie." Id. They "began walking and talking on the way back, and ultimately started holding hands until [they] arrived to [their] building on campus." Id. Once they got to Doe's room, Doe went downstairs to the water fountain with his roommate, who "asked if anything was going on between [Roe] and [Doe], as [Roe] appeared to be interested in [Doe] over the course of the night and was knowledgeable that the two of [them] had been talking regularly for quite some time." Id. Doe "was not sure what to expect and was going to see where the night would take [him]." Id.

Afterwards, in Doe's room, Doe and Roe "played a movie on Netflix and sat next to each other." Id. Doe described what happened next as follows:

I put my arm around [Roe], in which she was comfortable with . . . . we started kissing. We continued on and I started touching her intimate parts, in which she showed no resistance. I penetrated her digitally and there were no signs of her being uncomfortable. Eventually she paused, and I asked if everything was okay. I asked because I knew we had been friends for an extended period of time and perhaps getting intimate was not worth losing a friendship over. She said that everything was fine and then continued to unbuckle my belt, unbutton my pants, and then exposing and touching my penis. In no way, shape or form did I cause her to touch my intimate body parts. We continued with kissing and forms of petting until [Roe] paused again. I asked if everything was okay, and this second time, she indicated that she wanted to stop. We stopped immediately and continued watching the movie for a little while longer. It had gotten late (after 2 AM) and I wanted to go to bed. I said that she was welcome to spend the night on the futon or to go home (right next door) if she wanted to.

...