Schaumleffel v. Muskingum Univ.

JASON SCHAUMLEFFEL, Plaintiff, v. MUSKINGUM UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-463

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

March 6, 2018

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Jolson

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Jason Schaumleffel initiated this case against Defendants Muskingum University ("Muskingum"), Macey Zambori, Mackenzie Dickerson, Mark Neal, and John Does 1-5. Plaintiff alleges that he has been harmed by false allegations of sexual misconduct and has brought the following claims against the Defendants: violations of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, publication of private facts, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 1, Compl.). Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, money damages, and injunctive relief. This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants Muskingum, Zambori, and Dickerson's Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Docs. 5, 29, and 33). The matter is now ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiff Jason Schaumleffel in an Ohio resident and was a student at Muskingum University prior to his expulsion. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 18). Plaintiff also served a member of the Board of Education of Tri-Valley Local Schools during the timeframe at issue in this case. (Id. at ¶ 5). Defendant Muskingum is located in New Concord, Ohio. Defendants Macey Zambori and Mackenzie Dickerson are students at Muskingum. (Id. at ¶¶ 19-21). Does 1-5 are individual Muskingum students and/or employees who disclosed the nature of the allegedly false statements made by Defendants Zambori and Dickerson and Muskingum's findings and discipline in response to those charges to Mark Neal, the Superintendent of Tri-Valley Local Schools, and/or other third parties. (Id. at ¶ 22).

B. Muskingum's Student Handbook

Muskingum's 2016-17 Student Handbook outlines the process by which a complaint alleging sexual assault is handled. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 150; Student Handbook attached as Ex. 17). Once a complaint is filed, Muskingum conducts a preliminary investigation. (Doc. 1-17, Handbook at 64). Valerie Smith, Muskingum's Director of International Student Services and Special Programs, and Beth Fox, Muskingum's head women's basketball coach and Senior Women's Administrator, were charged with conducting the investigation at issue in this case. (Id.). The Handbook states that "Cases involving physical contact or severe harassment will likely be resolved through the Community Standards Board hearing process." (Id.). The Community Standards Board is made up of students, staff, and faculty members, and functions as "the upper level disciplinary body of the University for resolving allegations of major violations of the Code of Student Conduct." (Id. at 50).

C. The Alleged Misconduct

1. Miss Mackenzie Dickerson

Plaintiff and Defendant Dickerson were both enrolled as students at Muskingum during the events at issue in this case. In November 2016, Plaintiff met Miss Dickerson through an app called Tinder. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 26). The two exchanged numerous text messages via Tinder that illustrate that they were getting to know one another and planning to become romantically involved. (Id. at ¶ 27 (setting forth the text messages in their entirety)). They also exchanged phone numbers and exchanged text messages. They were unable to meet up during the next few weeks but continued to exchange numerous sexually explicit text messages, including each of them sending nude photographs of themselves to the other. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-30). Some examples of the text messages include, when asked how kinky or adventurous she was, Miss Dickerson responded "I'm pretty adventurous" and "I like it very rough." She continued, "I like it when I'm being thrown around, my hair being pulled, and my ass being slapped." Additionally, she texted: "I bet the next eleven days are going to drive you crazy thinking about how you want to control me, how it would feel to have my lips on your cock, wondering what I taste like, wanting to be able to touch me however you want to." (Id. at ¶ 30). Plaintiff was shocked and responded to a couple of the messages with "Holy f___k Mackenzie." (Id.). He was very excited and continued to engage in the sexual text messages.

When the students returned from Thanksgiving break, Plaintiff and Miss Dickerson finally spent some time together. The first night they hung with friends and kissed. (Id. at ¶¶ 31-32). The next day, Miss Dickerson invited Plaintiff to her room. They began kissing and engaged in some dry humping, but Plaintiff had to leave when Miss Dickerson's roommate returned home. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-41). They had planned to spend the night together on Friday of thatweek because Plaintiff's roommate was out of town, but something came up and Miss Dickerson was unavailable. They went to lunch at Bob Evans on Saturday afternoon. (Id. at ¶¶ 42-43). On their way back to campus, they agreed to go to the New Concord Reservoir where they engaged in foreplay and then discussed having sex. Miss Dickerson said she wanted to and the couple had intercourse. (Id. at ¶¶ 47-78). Plaintiff drove Miss Dickerson back to her dorm and that is the last time he saw her in person. (Id. at ¶ 79). Plaintiff alleges that Miss Dickerson did not initially want to file a sexual misconduct charge against him, but Muskingum's Title IX Officer Farley convinced Miss Dickerson to do so by telling her that Plaintiff had previously engaged in sexual misconduct with Miss Zambori. (Id. at ¶ 154).

2. Miss Macey Zambori

Plaintiff met Defendant Zambori, who was also a student at Muskingum, during Student Senate and in a Health and Fitness class. (Id. at ¶ 84). In February 2016, they exchanged messages via Facebook messenger and eventually exchanged phone numbers. (Id. at ¶ 85). The two hung out a couple days and they kissed and engaged in some sexual activities but did not have intercourse. They discussed sex and Miss Zambori said she wanted to wait until marriage. They continued to engage in other sexual related acts. The next day, Plaintiff and Miss Zambori saw each other in class and talked a little. Then, the following day, Plaintiff received a No Contact Directive prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting Miss Zambori.¹ (Id. at ¶¶ 85-99).

Miss Zambori did not file a complaint for sexual misconduct against Plaintiff until January 2017, almost a year after requesting the No Contact Directive, and only after Muskingum requested her to do so after Miss Dickerson filed her complaint. (Id. at ¶ 155). On January 20, 2017, Miss Zambori told Plaintiff's fraternity brother, Matt Triola, thatMuskingum's student life office requested that she file a sexual misconduct charge against Plaintiff, stating that "It had happened to another girl" and that they needed her to write a statement about what had happened between her and Mr. Schaumleffel in February 2016, leading to the No Contact Directive. (Id. at ¶¶ 156-157).

D. Muskingum's Investigation and Discipline of Plaintiff

On January 16, 2017, Muskingum's Title IX Coordinator/Director of Student Conduct Amber (Zifzal) Farley ("Farley") sent Plaintiff a "Notice of Investigation" letter which identified Farley as "Title IX Coordinator" and Smith and Fox as "University Title IX Investigators" regarding allegations against him from an unidentified source (and) attached a statement of his rights. (Doc. 1-27, Farley's January 16, 2017 Notice of Investigation letter). Prior to conducting the initial interview of Plaintiff, Smith and Farley communicated with him via email. Smith explained that she would be the lead investigator and Fox would serve as the note taker and that he would have an opportunity to review the typed notes of his interview. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 159; Doc. 1-29). Smith and Fox conducted their initial interview of Plaintiff on January 25, 2017. (Id.). On January 31, 2017, Smith emailed Plaintiff the transcript of the investigators' interview with him. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 161; Doc. 1-31, January 31, 2017 email from Smith to Mr. Schaumleffel). On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Smith with concerns about the interview transcript, stating, "I found numerous occasions where a statement I made was transcribed but the following explanation was missing." (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 162). Plaintiff was given one week to respond to the interview transcript. (Doc. 1-32, Feb. 1, 2017 email from Smith to Mr. Schaumleffel). On February 7, 2017, Plaintiff provided documentation to supplement the investigation transcript. He provided additional documentation the next day and also asked for a few weeks to compile relevant text and snapchat messages. (Docs. 1-33 and 1-34, Feb. 7, 2017and Feb. 8, 2017 emails from Mr. Schaumleffel to Smith). Plaintiff, however, was not given any additional time and the Investigation Report was submitted to Title IX Coordinator Farley on February 22, 2017. (Doc. 1-35).

On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff met with Farley to receive a copy of the Investigation Report and at that time, he was informed that two separate complaints had been filed against him. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 168). Farley asked Plaintiff to consent to consolidate the two hearings and Plaintiff agreed. (Id. at ¶ 169; Doc. 1-36). Plaintiff ultimately responded in writing to the Investigation Report, noting the errors and asserting that the text messages he exchanged with Miss Dickerson illustrate her desire and intent to engage in sexual activity. (Doc. 1-37). Plaintiff was not informed who the complainants were prior to his interview and wasn't able to present this evidence at the interview, therefore it was not included in the Investigation Report. It was later added...