Doe v. Univ. of Mass.

1

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, HANNAH MONBLEAU, KATE LEGEE, ADAM DUNBAR, and ESMERALDA LEVESQUE, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-12077-WGY

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

April 9, 2024

FINDINGS OF FACT, RULINGS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

WILLIAM G. YOUNG JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES ^[7]

I. BACKGROUND

Public universities are necessarily loci of unpopular opinions that add to the educational discourse. At the same time, public universities have an obligation to protect their students from other students' misconduct that disrupts or interferes with the operations of the university or rights of others. The Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 507 (1969) recognizes that issues inevitably arise where “the exercise of First Amendment rights collide with the rules of the school authorities” and, as discussed in more detail below, instructs the district courts - this Court - not to act as an appellate court, but rather to defer to “reasonable” actions by public school officials in carrying out their difficult charge. See id.

In this action, John Doe (“Doe”)^[1] a graduate student and resident advisor (“RA”) was disciplined by the University of Massachusetts (“UMass Lowell”) for violation of its Student Conduct Code for what it deemed was Doe's sexual misconduct. UMass Lowell employee Hanna Monbleau (“Monbleau”) investigated complaints by four RAs (also students) which uncovered other misconduct. A hearing panel comprised of UMass Lowell employees Kate Legee (“Legee”), Adam Dunbar (“Dunbar”), and Esmeralda Levesque (“Levesque”) (Monbleau, Legee, Dunbar, and Levesque are collectively the “Individual Defendants”) held a hearing - that Doe chose not to attend -- and found that Doe had engaged in a pattern of conduct towards female students that violated the Student Conduct Code. Doe was not expelled, but banned from campus housing, ordered to stay away from the victims, and required to complete a remedial behavior class before continuing his classes. Doe filed this lawsuit.

On November 20, 2023, the Court, as is its practice, collapsed Doe's motion for a preliminary injunction against Legee, ECF No. 20, with a trial on the merits pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Electronic Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 25. On November 28, 2023, UMass Lowell, Trustees of UMass Lowell (the “Trustees”), and the Individual Defendants (collectively, the “University Defendants”) filed their answer to the complaint, raising affirmative defenses, including qualified immunity and sovereign immunity. Answer, ECF No. 26.

On December 18, 2023, the parties agreed in their pretrial memorandum, Pretrial Mem., ECF No. 31, to proceed case stated, filing a joint statement of stipulated facts, Stipulated Facts (“Stip. Facts”), ECF No. 31-1, and joint exhibit list, Joint Ex. List (“Ex.”), ECF No. 31-2. The University Defendants filed a trial brief, Univ. Defs.' Trial Br., ECF No. 35, and a proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, University Defs.' Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 36. Similarly, Doe filed a trial brief, Doe's Trial Br., ECF No. 39, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Pl.'s Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 38.

Doe dismissed count II (Title IX) by a purported notice of voluntary dismissal, Pl.'s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Count II, ECF No. 33,^[2] and dismissed count IV (Breach of Contract) at the case stated hearing held on February 5, 2024, after which the Court took the matter under advisement. See Electronic Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 41.

What remains of Doe's original complaint, Compl., ECF No. 1, are two counts against UMass Lowell, the Trustees, and the Individual Defendants for monetary and equitable relief based on: (1) a claim for First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (count I) (the “Section 1983 Claim”); and (2) a claim under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (the “MCRA”), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, §§ 11H, 11I (count III) (the “MCRA Claim”) (the Section 1983 and MCRA Claim are collectively the “Remaining Counts”). At the hearing, the Court admitted the agreed-upon exhibits into evidence and, also disputed exhibits B through V. Doe does not attack the Student Conduct Code itself under these counts. See Compl. Rather, Doe's claim is that his conduct was protected under the United States and Massachusetts' constitutions.

For the reasons stated below, the Court finds and rules that the University Defendants acted reasonably, and therefore judgment shall enter in favor of the University Defendants and against Doe.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The parties stipulated to, and the Court adopts and finds, the Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, see Stip. Facts, which are recited almost verbatim and without quotations for ease of reference. The Court also has considered exhibits 1 through 13, and disputed exhibits B through V (giving them such weight as they are due) as part of the record in this case-stated action.

A. The Parties

Doe is a male Indian national in a Ph.D. program at Umass Lowell. Stip. Facts ¶ 1. The defendant UMass Lowell is a public university established by the Commonwealth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 75, § 1 et seq. Id. ¶ 2. It receives federal funding for its education programs. Id.

The defendant Trustees is the governing board of Umass Lowell. Id. ¶ 3. UMass Lowell has a campus in Lowell, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 4. UMass Lowell has a Student Conduct Code. Id. ¶ 5. As part of that Student Conduct Code, sexual misconduct is defined as:

Sexual misconduct: unwelcomed conduct of a sexual nature when: . . . such conduct unreasonably interferes with a person or person's work or academic performance; interferes with or limits a person or person's ability to participate in or benefit from a work or academic program or activity; or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic environment.

Student Conduct Code, Ex. 2. UMass Lowell has a Sexual Harassment Grievance Procedure. Stip. Facts ¶ 6; see Sexual Harassment Grievance Procedure, Ex. 3.

UMass Lowell employed defendant Monbleau as its Assistant Director of Student Life and Well-Being, defendant Legee as its Director of Student Conduct and Prevention, defendant Dunbar as its Senior Associate Director of Student Affairs, and defendant Levesque as its River Hawk Scholars Academy Coordinator. Stip. Facts ¶¶ 7-10. Doe worked as an RA in a dormitory on campus. Id. ¶ 11.

B. Doe's Purported Conduct and UMass Lowell's Investigation

On May 7, 2023, four female RAs J.T., C.T.Z., E.Z, and E.H., met with their supervisor to report concerns about Doe. Id. ¶ 12. C.T.Z., J.T., and E.H. made formal complaints against Doe. Id. ¶ 13.

On May 19, 2023, Doe received letters from both the Student Conduct Office and from a Deputy Title IX Coordinator. Id. On May 19, 2023, UMass Lowell suspended Doe from his role as an RA. Id. ¶ 14. On May 22, 2023, it issued no-contact orders between Doe and each of J.T., C.T.Z., E.Z, and E.H. Id. ¶ 15. UMass Lowell assigned Monbleau to investigate the Doe case. Id. ¶ 16. E.Z. did not participate in the investigation. Id. ¶ 17.

Monbleau interviewed E.H. on June 5, 2023. Id. ¶ 18. On June 5, 2023, Monbleau asked E.H. if there were witnesses E.H. would like Monbleau to interview. Id. ¶ 19. E.H. told Monbleau that she should interview S.K. as a witness. Id. ¶ 20.

Monbleau interviewed C.T.Z. and J.T. on June 6, 2023. Id. ¶ 21. On June 5, 2023, Monbleau asked C.T. if there were witnesses C.T. would like Monbleau to interview. Id. ¶ 22. C.T told Monbleau that she should interview S.K. and G.D. as witnesses. Id. ¶ 23.

On June 6, 2023, Monbleau contacted Doe to schedule an interview. Id. ¶ 24.

Monbleau interviewed S.K. as a witness on June 14, 2023. Id. ¶ 25. UMass Lowell issued a no-contact order between Doe and S.K. on June 20, 2023. Id. ¶ 26. S.K. subsequently made a formal complaint against Doe. Id. ¶ 27.

Monbleau interviewed Doe on June 23, 2023. Id. ¶ 28. On June 23, 2023, Monbleau asked Doe if there were witnesses Doe would like Monbleau to interview. Id. ¶ 29. Doe told Monbleau that she should interview A.M. as a witness. Id. ¶ 30.

On June 26, 2023, Monbleau again asked Doe if there were other witnesses he would like her to interview or screenshots of messages he wanted to send her for inclusion in the report. Id. ¶ 31. Doe sent Monbleau various screenshots of messages and extended explanations of his interactions with the complainants, which Monbleau included in the report. Id. ¶ 32; see Investigative Report, Ex. 10.

Monbleau interviewed G.D. as a witness on June 27, 2023. Stip. Facts ¶ 33. Monbleau interviewed A.M. as a witness on June 29, 2023. Id. ¶ 34. Monbleau wrote to Doe on June 30, 2023 to request a second interview. Id. ¶ 35. Monbleau interviewed Doe for a second time on July 5, 2023. Id. ¶ 36.

UMass Lowell sent the Investigative Report, Ex. 11, excluding its appendices, to Doe on July 11, 2023. Stip. Facts ¶ 37. In the Investigative Report, Monbleau recommended “to move this case, per the Title IX Sexual Harassment Grievance Procedure, to a hearing panel for a charge against [Mr. Doe] . . . [of] Sexual Misconduct.” Id. ¶ 38.

On July 12, 2023, Michael Coughlin, UMass Lowell's Associate Director of Student Rights & Responsibilities, notified Doe that his case would move to a “Title IX hearing panel,” scheduled for August 7, 2023, and that he “will need an advisor to conduct cross-examination.” Id. ¶ 39. On July 13, 2023, UMass Lowell notified Doe that his case would move to a hearing panel scheduled for August 7, 2023. Id. ¶ 40.

On July 19, 2023, Doe notified UMass Lowell that...