John Doe v. Samford University

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 1 of 60

[PUBLISH]

It the

United States Court of Appeals

Hor the Eleventh Circuit

No. 21-12592

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SAMFORD UNIVERSITY,

MALLORY KRUNTORAD,

ED.D. TIM S. HEBSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00871-ACA

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 2 of 60

2 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

No. 21-12840

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SAMFORD UNIVERSITY,

MALLORY KRUNTORAD,

Ed.D. TIM S. HEBSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00871-ACA

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 3 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 3

Before WILLIAM Pryor, Chief Judge, JORDAN, Circuit Judge, and

BROWN,” District Judge.

WILLIAM Pryor, Chief Judge:

This consolidated appeal presents two questions: first,

whether John Doe, a pseudonymous student at Samford Univer-

sity, has stated a claim against the university for a violation of Title

IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), based on a university disciplinary board

finding him responsible for sexual assault and suspending him for

five years; and second, whether Doe is entitled to proceed under a

pseudonym. Because Doe has not plausibly alleged that his suspen-

sion was “on the basis of sex,” see id., we affirm the dismissal of his

claim. And because the dismissal puts an end to the litigation, we

dismiss as moot the appeal from the order denying Doe’s motion

to proceed under a pseudonym.

I. BACKGROUND

Because one of the consolidated appeals “is from the dismis-

sal of a complaint, we accept the allegations of the complaint as

true. We recount the facts as alleged in the complaint. And we con-

strue them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Darrisaw v.

Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 949 F.3d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir.

2020) (citation omitted).

“Honorable Michael L. Brown, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 4 of 60

4 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

John Doe, the pseudonymous plaintiff, was a senior at Sam-

ford University, a private Christian university. On the evening of

Halloween 2020, he attended a party located at an offcampus

apartment. He brought with him two pitchers of an alcoholic bev-

erage he concocted. “[TJhe drink was, at most, seven percent ...

alcohol.”

Jane Roe, another pseudonymous student, arrived at the

apartment sometime later. Doe and Roe had never met before. Af-

ter trying some of the beverage Doe brought to the party, Roe

struck up a conversation with him. “Jane Roe commented to [Doe]

about the loud noise level at the [p]arty. [Doe] suggested that they

go to[a].. . [fJriend’s [a]partment [nearby] where it was quieter so

they could talk.” Roe agreed and the two left together. “Jane Roe

did not appear intoxicated” and “[n]o one stopped [her] from leav-

ing the [pJarty with [Doe].” “From the time Jane Roe met [Doe] to

the time she left the [p]arty with [him], approximately twelve

minutes passed.”

At the friend’s apartment, after engaging in small talk, “Jane

Roe asked [Doe] ifhe wanted to ‘hook up.” “John asked Jane if she

was sure she wanted to engage in sexual activity with him, and she

confirmed that she did.” “Several times before and during their

consensual sexual intercourse, [Doe] asked Jane Roe for her con-

sent, and Jane Roe expressed consent.” “At all times during the con-

sensual sexual intercourse, Jane Roe had control over her speech

and bodily movements.” And “[a]t all times during the consensual

sexual intercourse,” Doe believed, based on “Jane Roe’s words and

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 5 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 5

actions,” that Roe “understood the who, what, where, when, why,

and/or how of the sexual interaction.” “After the sexual inter-

course ended, Jane Roe re-dressed on her own, left the [f}riend’s

[a]partment, descended a staircase, and returned to the [p]arty, all

without any assistance from [Doe].”

“Upon her return to the [p]arty, Jane Roe told [one witness]

that she was sexually assaulted by [Doe].” Roe then walked outside.

“Jane Roe’s sister. . . arrived at the outside location where Jane was

and asked what was going on.” By then, Doe had also returned to

the party, and he went outside at the request of another partygoer.

“A female outside asked [Doe] what he put in Jane Roe’s drink.

[Doe] responded that he put ‘everything in her drink.” Doe states

that he “mean[t] that he [had] made the [alcoholic beverage].”

After “Jane Roe’s sister. . . took [Roe] back to [Roe]’s dorm,”

Roe stated that Doe “raped her, gave her hickeys, and bit her lip

and breast.” The sister “took photos of Jane’s alleged injuries.” Roe

filed a police report against Doe the next day. “Jane’s blood was

drawn to test for the presence of drugs,” but “John never saw the

results of the blood test.”

Four days later, “Jane Roe filed a Title IX complaint .. .

against [Doe, ] alleging that [Doe]” had violated the university’s Ti-

tle IX policy. Specifically, “Jane Roe alleged that [Doe] had raped

her on the night of October 31, 2020, when she was incapacitated.”

Doe asserts that the initial steps of the investigation were

“[ijn clear violation of [the university’s Title IX] [p]olicy.” The

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 6 of 60

6 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

policy provides that “the [university’s] Title IX Coordinator must

provide a written notice of allegations [of sexual misconduct] to the

parties.” It also provides that, “[w]hen the Title IX Coordinator re-

ceives a formal complaint of [s]exual [m]isconduct, the Title IX Co-

ordinator will attempt to schedule an initial meeting with the re-

spondent.” But, according to Doe, Tim Hebson, the Title IX Coor-

dinator, “did not provide [Doe] with a written notice of the allega-

tions made against him by Jane Roe before [he] was interviewed.”

And Hebson “never conducted an initial meeting with [Doe] to no-

tify him of Jane Roe’s complaint and the alleged policy violations

in issue.” Doe does not mention whether he received a written no-

tice or met with Hebson at a later date.

Hebson “assigned [Mallory] Kruntorad as the Title IX Inves-

tigator to investigate the allegations of [Roe’s] [clomplaint.” This

investigation was Kruntorad’s “first Title IX investigation.”

Kruntorad “received little to no training about conducting unbi-

ased and impartial Title IX investigations,” and “lacked the experi-

ence necessary to conduct a Title IX investigation on her own in

accordance with the [p]olicy.” After emailing Doe about the inves-

tigation in early November, Kruntorad “met with [Doe] to take his

statement” in mid-November. “Kruntorad never advised [Doe] of

the specifics of Jane Roe’s allegations against him aside from a claim

that [he] raped Jane Roe.”

Kruntorad interviewed Roe several days later. “Jane Roe

told ... Kruntorad that she was drugged at the [p]arty and could

not consent to the sexual interaction with [Doe].” Roe also stated

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 7 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 7

“that when [Doe] got her a drink at the party, [Doe]’s back was to

her and she ‘could not see what was being put in it.” And she stated

that “she started to feel ‘fuzzy’ when walking to the [f]riend’s

[a]partment with [Doe].” On an audio recording of Kruntorad’s in-

terview with Jane Roe, “Kruntorad can be heard stating, ‘I still

think, regardless, you couldn’t give consent.”

Doe asserts that the interview was deficient because

Kruntorad failed to ask Roe certain questions. Kruntorard “failed

to question Jane Roe about whether Jane Roe consumed any alco-

holic beverages prior to the [p]arty.” She “never questioned Jane

Roe about whether she obtained hickeys from sexual activity on

another night.” And she did not “conduct{] follow-up interviews

with Jane Roe or [Doe] during the course of the investigation.”

At the end of an eleven-day-long investigation, Kruntorad

wrote and provided to Doe and Roe a preliminary investigation re-

port. Doe asserts that it “contained highly prejudicial hearsay state-

ments purportedly made by law enforcement about [his] alleged

attack of [Roe] and [his] suspected prior sexual history,” and

“highly prejudicial and inflammatory statements about [Doe]’s

mental health.” Still, one witness had “expressed disbelief that

[Roe] was drugged.” The same witness had “reported that Jane

Roe’s sister . . . stated that Jane Roe may have received the hickeys

on a prior evening.” That witness had also reported that “Jane Roe

told [a third party] that she consented to sex with [Doe].” But “sev-

eral witnesses ... attested to [Roe’s] incapacitation.” And

Kruntorad “found Jane Roe more credible than [Doe]” based on

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 8 of 60

8 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

the statements of those witnesses. The report was accompanied by

recordings of the interviews Kruntorad had conducted.

Doe and Roe both responded to the report, as the Title IX

policy permits. Roe reiterated “that she believed she was drugged

by [Doe] and that she never got physically sick from excess alco-

hol.” And she “was critical of [the witness] who expressed disbelief

that she was drugged.” Doe “submitted evidence about his [Atten-

tion-Deficit /Hyperactivity Disorder] and [Pervasive Developmen-

tal Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified], which is high functioning

autism.” “This evidence was submitted to explain [Doe]’s rigid

communication style.” According to the complaint, a revised re-

port “found [Doe] to be less credible than Jane Roe based on state-

ments that [Doe] made about immaterial facts.”

Separately, Doe lodged objections with Hebson about the

investigation. Doe contested the jurisdiction of the university over

the complaint. He “questioned the incompleteness and lack of im-

partiality of [the] investigation.” He “express[ed] concern” that

Kruntorad failed to do more “to uncover exculpatory evidence.”

He “requested the full names of all witnesses interviewed in the

investigation,” “the photographs of Jane Roe’s alleged injuries,”

and “Jane Roe’s medical . . . records.” He “objected to the inclusion

of the recordings in the materials to be provided to the Title IX

[hjearing panel” because the report “did not identify .. . the names

of the speakers heard on the recording.” And he asked that the in-

terview summaries of statements made by parties “who would not

be testifying at the hearing be redacted from the investigative

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 9 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 9

report.” The Title IX policy does not appear to require the disclo-

sure of the names of witnesses, but it does prohibit the hearing

panel from “rely[ing] on any statement of [a] party or witness” who

does not submit to cross-examination at the live hearing.

Doe was not satisfied with Hebson’s response. “Hebson re-

fused to provide the names of the witnesses interviewed by ...

Kruntorad,” and did not address Doe’s request for access to photo-

graphs of Roe’s injuries and Roe’s medical records. Hebson also

told Doe that “decisions related to presented information will be

decided upon at the hearing,” a statement that is consistent with a

provision in the policy that the power to determine the admissibil-

ity of evidence resides with the hearing panel.

A live hearing took place before a hearing panel over two

days in early 2021. Roe and her sister testified. “[F]or the first time,

Jane Roe claimed that she consumed alcohol prior to arriving at the

[plarty.” And “for the first time, Jane Roe suggested that her inca-

pacitation was the result of drinking too much alcohol, rather than

being drugged by [Doe].” Roe’s sister testified about “purported in-

juries that Jane Roe sustained” and “testified that Jane Roe passed

out and had no pulse at times outside of the [p]arty.” Doe does not

mention what evidence he presented or whether he testified, but

he alleges that the hearing panel “refused to hear testimony from”

the individual who had written a report on Doe’s behalf about

Doe’s autism. He also alleges that “the Title IX Hearing Panel re-

ceived an un-redacted copy of the Title IX [iJnvestigation [rJeport”

that contained statements from non-testifying witnesses.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 10 of 60

10 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

The hearing panel issued a notice of determination “finding

[Doe] responsible for engaging in prohibited conduct” and sus-

pending him for five years. Doe does not describe the notice of de-

termination in much detail, but he alleges that the “[p]anel found

that Jane Roe’s ability to consent to intercourse with John was im-

paired by alcohol consumption.” And the panel “cited Jane Roe’s

testimony that she consumed alcohol before the [p]arty.”

Doe appealed the notice of determination to a university ap-

peal panel. Doe argued that there was “a biased, impartial, [s/c] and

prejudicial investigation process,” and that there were “several pro-

cedural irregularities.” He also submitted “newly discovered evi-

dence”—a letter from a doctor “opin[ing] that many of Jane Roe’s

claims were not medically supportable” because “she could not

pass out and then awaken and be able to text or have lucid conver-

sations with other students, and [because] [Roe]’s explanation

about bruising on her chest could be attributed to prior trauma to

the skin.”

The appeal panel dismissed Doe’s appeal. The “[a]ppeal

[p]anel conceded that there were procedural irregularities during

the investigation process that were inconsistent with the [p]olicy,

largely attributing these [irregularities] to ‘inexperience’ and ‘ad-

justment’ to a new policy.” The appeal panel “did not address why

[the doctor’s] report” would not “affect the outcome of the mat-

ter.” The appeal panel “determined the [proffered] testimony [re-

garding Doe’s autism] was not relevant but failed to explain the

basis of this determination.” And the appeal panel “acknowledged

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 11 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 11

that the [h]earing [p]anel received a copy of the full Title IX [i]Jnves-

tigative [rJeport but found that those statements were not consid-

ered by the [hearing [p]anel.”

Doe sued the university, Kruntorad, and Hebson. The com-

plaint alleges that the university violated Title IX, 20 U.S.C.

§ 1681(a), because “gender bias was . . . a motivating factor in [the

university's] erroneous finding against [him]” and because he “was

not treated as favorably as a female would be treated in a Title IX

investigation.” In support of his theory of selective enforcement of

the policy, Doe alleges that “upon review of [the university’s] Clery

statistics it appears that there have been at least seven reported

rapes.” And he alleges that, “[u]Jpon information and belief, the ac-

cused students were all males” and were “treated differently than a

female would be treated if accused of a similar offense.” The com-

plaint also advances state-law claims against the university for

breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing, and against all defendants for negligence. The complaint

requests declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory

and punitive damages.

Immediately after filing his complaint, Doe filed a motion to

proceed under a pseudonym. The university “d[id] not object to

[the motion], [and] contend[ed]” that the district court should “seal

the record in this case pending the opportunity for counsel to con-

fer regarding entry of an appropriate protective order.” The district

court denied the motion to seal the entire record and denied Doe’s

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 12 of 60

12 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

request to proceed under a pseudonym. Doe appealed the order.

And the district court stayed the order pending appeal.

The university moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Regarding the Title IX claim, the uni-

versity argued that one of the theories of harm mentioned in the

complaint—liability based on an erroneous outcome motivated by

sex bias—“deviates from the requirements of Title IX” and “has not

been adopted by the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit.” It

argued that the relevant question was instead “whether the plaintiff

has pleaded a plausible set of facts demonstrating that plaintiffs sex

was the reason for the university’s decision.” It argued that, under

either approach, Doe failed to state a claim because he “ha[d] not

alleged facts sufficient to show a particularized causal connection

between the outcome and gender bias.” And it argued that Doe

failed to state a claim under the other theory of harm mentioned in

the complaint—selective enforcement—because the complaint

lacked facts supporting the assertion that Doe “was not treated as

favorably as a female would be treated in a Title IX investigation.”

The district court granted the motion to dismiss. It agreed

with the university that Doe’s theories of harm were at odds with

the text of Title IX, but it “analyze[d] his claim[] under those theo-

ries” anyway because “Doe framed both his complaint and his ar-

gument in response to the motion to dismiss under [those] theo-

ries.” The district court concluded that Doe had “adequately al-

lege[d] that he was innocent and wrongly found to have committed

the offense.” But it explained that the complaint fell short under

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 13 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 13

the erroneous outcome theory because the allegations, taken to-

gether, did not “support[] a reasonable inference that anti-male bias

caused the erroneous outcome.”

The Title IX claim fared no better under the selective en-

forcement theory. The district court explained that “Doe’s state-

ments that a female would be treated more favorably than he was

treated are utterly conclusory.” And “[e]ven taking all of John

Doe’s non-conclusory allegations as true, he cannot show that [the

university] treats sexual assault complaints against female respond-

ents any differently than it treats sexual assault complaints against

male respondents if he cannot point to a female respondent.”

The district court dismissed the Title IX claim without prej-

udice. And it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

the remaining claims, which were all premised on violations of

state law. It dismissed those claims without prejudice, too. Doe

timely appealed and we consolidated his two appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under Fed-

eral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.”

Feldman v. Am. Dawn, Inc., 849 F.3d 1333, 1339 (11th Cir. 2017).

We review questions of our jurisdiction under the same standard.

United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967, 970 (11th Cir. 2019).

Il. DISCUSSION

We divide our discussion in two parts. We first explain why

Doe failed to state a claim for a violation of Title IX. Second, we

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 14 of 60

14 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

explain why the appeal from the order denying the motion to pro-

ceed under a pseudonym is moot.

A. Doe Failed to State a Claim for a Violation of Title IX.

Familiar principles govern a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the pre-

sumption of truth applies only to facts, the court may disregard “la-

bels and conclusions ... couched as ... factual allegation[s].” /d.

(internal quotation marks omitted).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads fac-

tual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” /d. “Factual

allegations that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability

fall short of being facially plausible.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp.,

693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omit-

ted). And when determining whether the complaint crosses “the

line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief,”

Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (alteration

adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted), “courts may infer

from the factual allegations in the complaint obvious alternative

explanations, which suggest lawful conduct rather than the unlaw-

ful conduct the plaintiff would ask the court to infer,” Am. Dental

Assn v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010)

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 15 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 15

(alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554 (holding that allegations of wrongdoing

were not plausible because the facts alleged were “consistent with

[liability], but just as much in line with a wide swath of” lawful

conduct).

Before applying these principles to Doe’s complaint, we ad-

dress a threshold question: the appropriate framework for estab-

lishing a violation of Title IX. Title IX provides that “[nJo person

... Shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be

denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any

education program or activity receiving Federal financial assis-

tance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Supreme Court has held “that Title

IX is... enforceable through an implied private right of action.”

Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 281 (1998). But

“[njeither the Supreme Court nor this Court has established a

framework for analyzing Title IX challenges to university discipli-

nary proceedings.” Doe v. Valencia Coll. 903 F.3d 1220, 1236 (11th

Cir. 2018).

Doe advances two tests for establishing liability for a univer-

sity disciplinary proceeding, both derived from Yusufv. Vassar Col-

lege, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994)—the “erroneous outcome” test and

the “selective enforcement” test. “Under [the erroneous outcome]

test, a student must show both that he was ‘innocent and wrongly

found to have committed an offense’ and that there is ‘a causal con-

nection between the flawed outcome and [sex] bias.’” Valencia

Coll, 903 F.3d at 1236 (quoting Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 715). Under the

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 16 of 60

16 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

selective enforcement test, a student must allege and ultimately

prove “that, regardless of the student’s guilt or innocence, the se-

verity of the penalty and/or the decision to initiate the proceeding

was affected by the student’s [sex].” Yusuf 35 F.3d at 715.

The university, by contrast, urges the Court to apply a test

first developed by the Seventh Circuit: “do the alleged facts, if true,

raise a plausible inference that the university discriminated against

[the plaintiff] ‘on the basis of sex’?” Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d

652, 667-68 (7th Cir. 2019). This test has been adopted by at least a

plurality of our sister circuits. See, e.g, Doe v. Univ. of Scis., 961

F.3d 203, 209 (3d Cir. 2020); Sheppard v. Visitors of Va. State Univ.,

993 F.3d 230, 236 (4th Cir. 2021); Doe v. Univ. of Ark. - Fayetteville,

974 F.3d 858, 864-65 (8th Cir. 2020); Schwake v. Ariz. Bd. of Re-

gents, 967 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Doe v. Univ. of

Denver, 1 F.4th 822, 830 (10th Cir. 2021) (agreeing with this ap-

proach and modifying it to suit review of a motion for summary

judgment).

The Seventh Circuit test hews more closely to “the text of

the statute and binding precedent” than does Yusuf Cf Ring v.

Boca Ciega Yacht Club Inc., 4 F.4th 1149, 1158 (11th Cir. 2021) (in

the context of another anti-discrimination statute, preferring a text-

based rule). It mirrors the statutory prohibition of adverse action

“on the basis of sex.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). It incorporates the plau-

sibility standard against which factual allegations must be assessed.

And its use in other circuits “make[s] clear that this [test] is judi-

cially administrable.” Cf Ring, 4 F.4th at 1158. The tests in Yusuf

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 17 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 17

by contrast, do not capture the full range of conduct that could lead

to liability under Title IX. They “simply describe [two] ways in

which a plaintiff might show that sex was a motivating factor in a

university’s decision.” Purdue, 928 F.3d at 667; see also Yusuf, 35

F.3d at 715 (“Plaintiffs attacking a university disciplinary proceed-

ing on grounds of [sex] bias can be expected to fall generally within

two categories.”). So, “at bottom[,] [the Yusuftests] ask the same

question,” Doe v. Columbia Coll. Chi, 933 F.3d 849, 854-55 (7th

Cir. 2019), that the Seventh Circuit test “ask[s]... more directly,”

Purdue, 928 F.3d at 667. Indeed, even though some circuits have

treated Yusuf as having established “formal doctrinal tests,” id,

Yusuf itself acknowledges that, “[iJn order to survive a motion to

dismiss, the plaintiff must specifically allege the events claimed to

constitute intentional discrimination as well as circumstances giv-

ing rise to a plausible inference of ... discriminatory intent,” 35

F.3d at 713.

“We agree with the Seventh[] Circuit's approach,” with one

modification, “and see no need to deviate from the text of Title IX.”

Sheppard, 993 F.3d at 236. The Seventh Circuit test asks whether

the facts “raise a plausible inference” of a Title IX violation, Purdue,

928 F.3d at 668 (emphasis added). And, to be sure, the ultimate in-

quiry is the “facial plausibility” of the complaint. But facial plausi-

bility is determined by asking whether the facts alleged “allow[] the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable.”

Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (emphasis added). We ask whether the

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 18 of 60

18 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

alleged facts, if true, permit a reasonable inference that the univer-

sity discriminated against Doe on the basis of sex.

1. The Alleged Facts Do Not Permit a Reasonable Inference that

the University Discriminated against Doe on the Basis of Sex.

Doe contends that he has pleaded sufficient facts to permit a

reasonable inference of sex discrimination, but we disagree. He as-

serts that the inference is warranted because of the allegations

about procedural irregularities at the investigation and hearing

stages, “public pressure[] to comply with Title IX,” public state-

ments by university officials, and “statistics revealing numerous al-

legations against male students” raise a reasonable inference of sex

discrimination. But, viewed in isolation or collectively, these alle-

gations do not make it plausible that Doe was suspended on the

basis of sex. We address each set of allegations in turn.

a. The Alleged Procedural Irregularities Do

Not Make Sex Discrimination Plausible.

Doe’s argument that “gross procedural deviations” permit a

reasonable inference of sex discrimination fails for two reasons.

First, some of the alleged deviations are either conclusory or in-

complete. Second, the remaining allegations do not permit a rea-

sonable inference of sex discrimination.

Some of Doe’s allegations of procedural irregularities are as-

sertions unsupported by facts. For example, Doe alleges that “[t]he

[iJnvestigation [rJeport contained highly prejudicial hearsay state-

ments purportedly made by law enforcement about [Doe]'s alleged

attack of [Roe] and [Doe]’s suspected prior sexual history.” And he

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 19 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 19

alleges that the report also “contained highly prejudicial and in-

flammatory statements about John’s mental health.” But Doe’s al-

legations that the statements were “prejudicial” and “inflamma-

tory” are “not entitled to the assumption of truth” because these

allegations are “labels” and “[un]supported by factual allegations.”

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (internal quotation marks omitted);

cl Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35 (4th Cir. 1990) (explaining

that a complaint was conclusory because the plaintiff “allege[d]

that she was ‘required to work in places and under conditions

where prejudice and bias exist,’ but her complaint nowhere al-

lege[d] any specific oppressive conditions or expressions of ‘preju-

dice and bias’” (citation omitted)). And the inclusion of hearsay in

the investigation report was not necessarily improper because the

Title IX policy provides that the report “may consist of any relevant

information,” including “any . . . evidence obtained during the in-

vestigation,” and the prior sexual conduct of an individual accused

of sexual assault may be relevant. See, e.g., United States v. Breit-

weiser, 357 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2004) (finding no error in the

admission of the criminal defendant’s history of sexual conduct be-

cause “[t]he evidence was relevant to show [his] motive, intent,

knowledge, plan and preparation, and lack of mistake”).

Doe also counts among the procedural irregularities the de-

cision of “[t]he appellate board . . . [to] reject[] all medical evidence

showing the falsity of [Roe’s] claims,” but Doe does not allege suf-

ficient facts for the Court to suppose that this decision was im-

proper. Under the university’s Title IX policy, “new evidence” may

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 20 of 60

20 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

supply the basis for an appeal if that evidence “was not reasonably

available at the time of the determination regarding responsibility”

and “could affect the outcome of the matter.” Doe has not alleged

that the evidence he submitted to the appeal board—a letter from

a doctor—satisfies these requirements. The letter “opined . . . that

[Roe] could not pass out and then awaken and be able to text or

have lucid conversations[,] ... and that [Roe’s] explanation about

bruising on her chest could be attributed to prior trauma to the

skin.” But Doe has not alleged that this evidence “was not reason-

ably available at the time of the determination regarding responsi-

bility.” For example, he did not allege that he was unaware, prior

to the hearing, of the evidence concerning Roe’s injuries or her sis-

ter’s statement about Roe’s lapse of consciousness. Doe alleges

only that “[t]he [a]ppeal [d]ecision did not address why [the letter]

did not rise to the level that would affect the outcome of the mat-

ter’—omitting any discussion of the reasonable availability of the

letter and of the appeal board’s consideration of that requirement.

Doe’s remaining allegations of procedural irregularities do

not support a reasonable inference that the university acted “on the

basis of sex.” See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). A deviation from a Title IX

policy is not, in and of itself, a violation of Title IX. Cf Gebser, 524

USS. at 292 (holding that a school’s failure to follow a Title IX reg-

ulation “d[id] not itself constitute ‘discrimination’ under Title IX”).

To be sure, that kind of deviation is at least “consistent with” sex

discrimination. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554 (emphasis added).

But allegations that are “merely consistent with” liability “stop[]

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 21 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 21

short of the line between possibility and plausibility.” See id. at 557.

And Doe’s “bare assertion” that the procedural irregularities are at-

tributable to his sex does not make his speculation plausible. See id.

at 555-56; Austin v. Univ. of Or., 925 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2019)

(explaining that the plaintiffs had failed to state a Title [X claim “be-

cause the [plaintiffs] d[id] not articulate any basis to discern that the

administration or outcomes of the disciplinary proceedings were

flawed due to the [plaintiffs] sex”); Columbia Coll, 933 F.3d at 856

(explaining that alleged restrictions on a respondent’s “access to

documents relevant to the investigation” did not “demonstrate[] an

anti-male bias” in part because “th[e] allegation [was] divorced

from [sex}—Doe d[id] not allege that females accused of sexual as-

sault were allowed to review materials or that only female victims

were allowed to review them”); Yusuf 35 F.3d at 715 (“[A]llega-

tions of a procedurally or otherwise flawed proceeding ... com-

bined with a conclusory allegation of [sex] discrimination [are] not

sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”).

Doe’s allegations permit “obvious alternative explanations

... [that] suggest lawful conduct rather than the unlawful conduct

the plaintiff would ask the court to infer.” Am. Dental, 605 F.3d at

1290 (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Those lawful explanations include ineptitude, inexperience, and

pro-complainant bias. For example, Doe seeks an inference of sex

discrimination from the university’s failure to redact the portions

of the investigative report containing statements from witnesses

who did not testify at the hearing, as the Title IX policy requires.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 22 of 60

22 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

But this failure is “just as much’—if not more—“in line,” see

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554, with the appeal board’s explanation that

the hearing panel was still adjusting to the three-month-old Title

IX policy. See 85 Fed. Reg. 30026, 30028 (May 19, 2020); 34 C.F.R.

§ 106.45(b)(6)() (effective August 14, 2020, requiring “decision-

maker(s)” to disregard the testimony of witnesses who do not sub-

mit to cross-examination at a live hearing). Indeed, Doe alleges that

the appeal board “found that [the improperly unredacted] state-

ments were not considered by the [h]Jearing [p]anel.” And Doe does

not dispute this finding. This undisputed finding makes the failure

to redact “more likely explained by ... lawful” mistake than un-

lawful bias. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680; Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v.

Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 642 (1999) (explaining

that the Supreme Court has “declined the invitation to impose [Ti-

tle IX] liability under what amount[s] to a negligence standard”).

Similarly, the allegations about deficiencies in the investiga-

tion are more in line with the appeal board’s explanation that the

deficiencies are attributable to the investigator’s “inexperience.”

Doe alleges that “Jane Roe’s complaint against [him] was

[Kruntorad’s] first Title IX investigation.” He alleges that, “prior to

leading the investigation of the [Title IX] [c]omplaint, [Kruntorad]

received little to no training about conducting . . . Title IX investi-

gations.” And he alleges that Kruntorad “lacked the experience nec-

essary to conduct a Title IX investigation on her own in accordance

with the [p]olicy.” So, ineptitude—a sex-neutral explanation that

does not violate Title IX, see Davis, 526 U.S. at 642—is the likelier,

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 23 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 23

more “obvious ... explanation” for the investigator’s departures

from the policy, see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 567.

Moreover, even if evidence of an investigation and hearing

that are “inconsistent with ordinary practice . . . may give rise to an

inference of bias,” Univ. of Ark., 974 F.3d at 865, there is no reason

to suppose that this bias concerned Doe’s sex. To the contrary, Doe

states throughout his complaint that the university favors a//com-

plainants and disfavors a//respondents in Title IX proceedings. For

example, he argues that Samford and other universities have “insti-

tutionalize[d] unfair procedures that lead to unfair and unreasona-

ble punishments of students accused of misconduct.” (Emphasis

added.) He alleges that Samford “announced to its constituency”

that, during its “initial assessment” of a Title IX complaint, “the

well-being of the complainant is paramount.” (Emphasis added.)

And he characterizes this announcement as “exhibit[ing] ... [a]

preference for the alleged victim.” (Emphasis added.) These allega-

tions, taken together with university’s alleged procedural missteps,

might permit a reasonable inference that the decision to suspend

Doe was motivated by a pro-complainant, anti-respondent bias.

But discrimination against respondents is not discrimination “on

the basis of sex,” see 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), and “does not permit a

reasonable inference of an anti-male bias” “because both men and

women can be respondents,” Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 952 F.3d

1182, 1196-97 (10th Cir. 2020).

Doe counters that discrimination on the basis of sex may be

inferred from the “arguably inexplicable” outcome of the hearing.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 24 of 60

24 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

See Doe v. Oberlin Coll, 963 F.3d 580, 588 (6th Cir. 2020). Under

this theory, “the merits of the decision itself... can support an in-

ference of sex bias” “when the degree of doubt” in “the accuracy of

the disciplinary proceeding’s outcome . . . passes from articulable

to grave.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. (draw-

ing that inference because the hearing panel’s decision, as alleged,

was without an “apparent basis”); Univ. of Ark., 974 F.3d at 865

(holding that the plaintiff stated a Title IX claim in part because “the

allegations in the complaint support[ed] an inference that the hear-

ing panel reached an outcome that was against the substantial

weight of the evidence”). Doe does not explain why this inference

would be “reasonable,” see Jgbal, 556 U.S. at 678, but presumably

the rationale is that the more outrageous the decision is, the less

likely it is that any errors were made in good faith. And when the

erroneous decision ceases to be consistent with good-faith mistake,

the explanation of improper bias becomes sufficiently likely to

cross “the line between possibility and plausibility.” See Twombly,

550 US. at 557. Doe asserts that he is entitled to this inference be-

cause “the underlying investigation was completed in just ten...

days,” the investigator “failed to even attempt to gather potentially

exculpatory evidence,” and “[n]Jeither [Roe] nor the hearing panel

commented on the flat contradiction between [Roe]’s theories of

intoxication.” We disagree.

Doe’s assertions are either irrelevant to his theory or unsup-

ported by the factual allegations in his complaint. The duration and

quality of the investigation are irrelevant because they relate to the

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 25 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 25

pre-hearing procedure, not “the merits of the decision itself.” Ober-

Lin, 963 F.3d at 588. And the complaint establishes that the investi-

gator did in fact uncover and disclose to Doe “potentially exculpa-

tory evidence,” including the statement of a witness “who ex-

pressed disbelief that [Roe] was drugged,” “reported” that “Roe

told [a third party] that she consented to sex with [Doe],” and “re-

ported that Jane Roe’s sister . . . stated that Jane Roe may have re-

ceived the hickeys on a prior evening.”

Doe’s allegations also do not cast “grave” doubt on “the

merits of the decision” of the university, see Oberlin, 963 F.3d at

588, that a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding of

responsibility. According to the complaint, Roe testified “that she

consumed alcohol prior to arriving at the [p]arty,” and she told the

investigator that “she started to feel ‘fuzzy’ when walking to the

[fjriend’s [a]partment with [Doe].” Roe told others immediately af-

ter the sexual encounter “that she was sexually assaulted by [Doe],”

and that he “bit her lip and breast.” Doe does not dispute that, after

the incident, there was “bruising on [Roe’s] chest.” And “several

witnesses ... attested to [Roe’s] incapacitation.” For example,

Roe’s sister testified “that Jane Roe passed out and had no pulse at

times outside of the [p]arty.” To be sure, the hearing panel credited

Roe’s testimony despite her inconsistencies about whether she was

drunk or had been drugged. But under the Title IX policy, incapac-

ity can be caused “by alcohol or drug consumption (whether vol-

untary or involuntary).” (Emphasis added.) So, Roe’s apparent un-

certainty about the cause of her alleged incapacitation has little

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 26 of 60

26 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

bearing on whether Roe was in fact incapacitated. And, in the light

of Doe’s statement to partygoers that he had “put ‘everything in

[Roe’s] drink,” Roe’s initial belief that she had been drugged is un-

derstandable, not inexplicable.

One uncited portion of the complaint alleges that the hear-

ing panel made no mention of Doe’s inconsistencies in the notice

of determination, but this allegation does not alter our conclusion.

We regularly permit factfinders to make unstated but implicit cred-

ibility determinations in more formal settings than school discipli-

nary hearings, such as in criminal proceedings. See, e.g., United

States v. Walker, 799 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2015) (on review of

the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, explaining that we

“give substantial deference to the factfinder’s credibility determina-

tions, both explicit and implicit.” G@nternal quotation marks omit-

ted)). We cannot hold the hearing panel to a higher standard than

we hold district courts. See Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Hor-

owitz, 435 U.S. 78, 88 (1978) (“A school is an academic institution,

not a courtroom or administrative hearing room.”).

b. The Alleged Public Pressure and Public Statements

Do Not Make Sex Discrimination Plausible.

Doe next argues that the complaint contains other facts

from which sex discrimination may reasonably be inferred. In par-

ticular, he mentions an announcement by the university in 2019

that, during “an initial assessment” of a Title 1X complaint, “the

well-being of the complainant is paramount”; that the university

“promoted an ‘It’s on Us Initiative’ ... tout[ing] [that] ‘every 21

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 27 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 27

hours there is a rape on an American college campus’”; and that

the university “was subjected to... pressure” from federal regula-

tors “to comply with Title IX and appear tough on sexual assault.”

Doe contends that these allegations make plausible his belief that

the university yielded to “public pressures to ... appear tough on

sexual assault” by discriminating on the basis of sex.

Again, Doe is mistaken. As already explained, the allegations

in the complaint about the university’s public statements at most

support a reasonable inference of pro-complainant bias, not pro-

female bias. And the assertion that public pressure led the univer-

sity to discriminate on the basis of sex is not supported by facts.

Doe makes a passing reference in the introductory section

of his complaint to the so-called “Dear Colleague Letter” issued by

the United States Department of Education in 2011. That letter “in-

structed universities on how to investigate and resolve complaints

of sexual misconduct under Title IX.” Doe asserts that “[e]duca-

tional institutions . . . continue to overreact to the threat of federal

investigations, sanctions, and lawsuits, in part by discriminating

against male students on the basis of their sex.”

Doe concedes that the Department of Education “formally

rescinded the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter on September 22, 2017,”

long before Doe’s hearing. And it is undisputed that the Depart-

ment promulgated new regulations that require greater procedural

protections for the accused, see 34 C.F.R. § 106.45, and that the uni-

versity has updated its Title IX policy to comply with those regula-

tions. Doe’s allegations about a government policy that has been

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 28 of 60

28 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

rescinded and replaced do not assist him in crossing “the line be-

tween possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief,”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration adopted) (internal quotation

marks omitted); see also Columbia Coll, 933 F.3d at 855—56 (hold-

ing that “generalized allegations” about “the ‘Dear Colleague’ Let-

ter,” even when combined with allegations of procedural impro-

priety, did not permit a “plausibl[e] infer[ence] that [the] investiga-

tion or adjudication was tainted by an anti-male bias”).

c. The Clery Statistics Do Not Change

the Plausibility of the Title [IX Claim.

The allegations about the university’s Clery report do not

assist Doe in stating a Title IX claim because the contents of the

report are “factually neutral.” See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 n.5. In

his complaint, Doe alleges that that “upon review of [the univer-

sity’s] Clery statistics it appears that there have been at least seven

reported rapes and nine reported cases of fondling”; and that,

“[ujpon information and belief,” “all” “the accused students were

... males.” But, as the district court explained, “[t]he Clery [rJeport

provides statistics of [on-campus] crimes reported to [Samford’s

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Management], local

law enforcement agencies, and Campus Security Authorities.” (In-

ternal quotation marks omitted.) “The report does not speak to the

sex of the person reporting the offense, the sex of the person ac-

cused of the offense, whether any school disciplinary proceedings

occurred as a result of the report, or what the result of the school

disciplinary proceedings was.” Assuming—as we must—that Doe’s

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 29 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 29

“information and belief” allegation is truthful, nothing in the Clery

report supports an inference that the university opened a single in-

vestigation into one of those reported accusations, much less that

the university treated a male respondent worse than it treated a

female respondent or female accuser.

To be clear, our conclusion that Doe has failed to state a

claim rests on an assessment of the plausibility of sex discrimina-

tion, and we “do[] not impose a probability requirement.” See

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Doe’s assertion of sex discrimination is

implausible because some allegations “are no more than conclu-

sions, [and] are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” /gbal, 556

USS. at 679. Other allegations “are merely consistent with [the uni-

versity’s] liability, so they stop[] short of the line between possibil-

ity and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” See id. at 678 (internal

quotation marks omitted). Still other allegations establish “more

likely explanations” for the university’s conduct, including inexpe-

rience, ineptitude, and sex-neutral pro-complainant bias. See id. at

681. And “[a]s between th[ose] obvious alternative explanation[s]

for the [university’s conduct], and the purposeful, invidious dis-

crimination [Doe] asks us to infer, [sex] discrimination is not a plau-

sible conclusion.” See id. at 682 (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

2. The Title IX Claim Also Fails Under the Yusuf Tests.

Because the two Yusuftests are no more than fact-specific

applications of the Seventh Circuit test, see Purdue, 928 F.3d at 667,

it follows from Doe’s failure to satisfy the latter that Doe has failed

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 30 of 60

30 Opinion of the Court 21-12592

to satisfy the former as well. Doe has not satisfied the erroneous

outcome test because he has not “allege[d] particular circum-

stances suggesting that [sex] bias was a motivating factor behind

the erroneous finding.” See Yusuf 35 F.3d at 715. Instead, the

“complaint itself identifies a number of other, [sex]-neutral factors

that may have led to the panel’s determination.” See id at 714.

Nor has Doe satisfied the selective enforcement test. To

state a claim under that test, a plaintiff must plausibly allege “an

inconsistency” between his treatment by the university and the

university's treatment of a similarly situated member of the other

sex. See id. at 716. Doe relies on the Clery report for that purpose,

but that report does not contain sufficient information to identify a

comparator and determine whether “the severity of the penalty

and/or the decision to initiate the proceeding was affected by the

student’s [sex].” See id. at 715. “Without nonconclusory allegations

that the male students were treated any differently than similarly

situated female students based on sex, the selective enforcement

theory fails.” Austin, 925 F.3d at 1138.

B. The Appeal from the Denial of the Motion To Proceed under

a Pseudonym is Moot.

Our affirmance of the dismissal of the Title IX claim renders

moot the appeal from the denial of the motion to proceed under a

pseudonym. Because Doe has not argued that the district court

erred by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dis-

missing the Title IX claim, he has forfeited any such argument. See

Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 31 of 60

21-12592 Opinion of the Court 31

2014). And with no litigation remaining in the district court, we are

unable to “give [Doe] meaningful relief’ with respect to the appeal

from the denial of the motion to proceed under a pseudonym. See

Friends of the Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d

1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

That appeal is moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the judgment in favor of the university. We

DISMISS AS MOOT the appeal from the denial of the motion to

proceed under a pseudonym.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 32 of 60

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 33 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 1

JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring:

[join Parts I, Il, I1.B, and IV of the majority opinion. As to

Part III.A, I concur in the judgment. I agree that Mr. Doe has failed

to allege facts that would allow a court to plausibly infer that

Samford University discriminated against him “on the basis of sex”

in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). But I have different

thoughts about how to apply Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), in a case

like this one.

I

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Jgbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly,

550 U.S. at 570). As the majority notes, this pleading standard is by

now a familiar one. Familiarity, however, does not always mean

clarity. Let me try to explain the issues as I see them,

acknowledging that I am not the first to flag them. See, eg,

McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 620-29 (7th Cir. 2011)

(Hamilton, J., dissenting in part).

A

The Supreme Court has told us that plausibility means

something more than possibility or speculation but something less

than probability: “The plausibility standard is not akin to a

‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” /gbal, 556 U.S. at

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 34 of 60

2 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

678. See also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57. On the surface, this

seems like an acceptable framing of the pleading standard, but

there are linguistic problems when one digs a bit deeper.

First, the word plausible connotes a level of uncertainty—

and even doubt—about the truthfulness of the claim. Second,

plausible and probable mean essentially the same thing. See, e.g.,

2 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1392, 1454 (11th ed. 2019) (defining

plausible as “[c]onceivably true or successful” and “possibly correct

or even likely[,] reasonable” and probable as “[l]ikely to exist, be

true or happen”); THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1346, 1397 (4th ed. 2006) (defining plausible as

“[sleemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable[,] credible”

and probable as “[ljikely to happen or to be true” and “likely but

uncertain, plausible’) (emphasis added); 2 SHORTER OXFORD

ENGLISH DICTIONARY 2238, 2352 (5th ed. 2002) (defining plausible

as “seemingly reasonable or probable (though speculative),” and

probable as “demonstrable, provable...[a]lso plausible’) (emphases

added). They are even treated as synonyms of each other. See

BURTON’S LEGAL THESAURUS 407, 426 (3d ed. 1998) (using

“probabilis’ [a Latin word meaning probable] as a synonym of

plausible and using “plausible” as a synonym of probable). The

Supreme Court has, unfortunately, failed to acknowledge that

there is “an incredibly thin line” between plausible and probable.

See Matthew Fischer, Ashcroft v. Igbal: The Supreme Court's

Attempt to Clarify Bell Atlantic_v. Twombly 18 (No. 2)

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 35 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 3

Competition, J. Anti. & Unfair Comp. L. Sec. St. B. Cal. 56, 73

(2009).

Maybe the Supreme Court thinks that any difficulties in

figuring out the daylight between plausible and probable can be

solved by reliance on judicial experience and common sense. See

Igbal, 550 U.S. at 679. Yet these traits—which are not objectively

uniform across the federal judiciary—have their own analytical

difficulties. See Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d

917, 965 n.5 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (Jordan, J., dissenting).

To make things more complicated, in several cases decided

after Twombly and/or Iqbal, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed

that Rule 8 only requires a short and plain statement of the claim.

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (explaining that

Twombly does not constitute a return to the old fact-pleading

system and that a complaint “need only ‘give the defendant fair

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); Johnson v. City of

Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (“Petitioners stated simply, concisely,

and directly events that, they alleged, entitled them to damages

from the city. Having informed the city of the factual basis for their

complaint, they were required to do no more to stave off threshold

dismissal for want of an adequate statement of their claim.”).

Exactly what these cases mean in the Twombly/ Iqbal universe is

not exactly clear. But I think they at least caution against reading

the pleading standard as overly demanding.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 36 of 60

4 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

B

Then there is the Supreme Court’s statement in Twombly,

550 US. at 557, repeated in /gba/, 556 U.S. at 678, that “[flactual

allegations that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability

fall short of being facially plausible.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp.,

693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations and

citations omitted). That concept is sometimes referred to as

“obvious alternative explanations” for the challenged conduct. See

Maj. Op. at 23.

In my view, this concept is difficult to justify at the pleading

stage, where proof of the claim is not required. “[O]ne cannot at

the same time rationally dispense with a ‘probability requirement’

to determine ‘plausibility’ yet conclude that something is not

‘plausible’ because there are other ‘more likely explanations.’ No

sense can be given of ‘more likely’ except ‘more probable.”

Ronald J. Allen & Alan E. Guy, Conley as a Special Case of

Twombly and Igbal: Exploring the Intersection of Evidence and

Procedure and the Nature of Rules, 115 Penn St. L. Rev. 1, 37

(2010). See also Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th

Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is not necessary to stack up inferences side by side

and allow the case to go forward only if the plaintiff's inferences

seem more compelling than the opposing inferences.”).

As I see it, the problem is particularly acute in a case alleging

discrimination, where the critical issue is often the defendant's

intent and the proof on that issue is often circumstantial. Imagine

a Title VII case where a plaintiff alleges in his racial discrimination

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 37 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 5

complaint (a) that his employer, when terminating him, said that

the dismissal was due to his poor job performance (his division’s

financial performance was below expected standards), and (b) that

this purported reason was pretext for racial discrimination

(although his division’s performance was below par compared to

other years, it was the highest (in a down year for the company)

compared to all other divisions, whose supervisors remained

employed). In such case, I suggest that it is virtually impossible for

a court to figure out, at the pleading stage, which factual assertion

is the more likely (i.e., more plausible) one. On the one hand, the

plaintiffs division did perform poorly, as the employer asserted.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs division was the best performer

when compared to all the other divisions, and none of the other

division supervisors lost their jobs. If a Title VII plaintiff is not

required to plead a prima facie case of discrimination in his

complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, see Swierkiewicz v.

Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002), then how is a court

supposed to figure out at the pleading stage which explanation is

the more plausible in this hypothetical? Cf Doe v. Univ. of

Denver, 1 F. 4th 822, 830-36 (10th Cir. 2021) (addressing, at

summary judgment, pretext in a Title IX discrimination case

brought by a male student charged with sexual misconduct);

Garrett v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs., 824 F. App’x 959, 966-67 (11th

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 38 of 60

6 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

Cir. 2020) (addressing, at summary judgment, pretext in a Title IX

retaliation claim brought by a victim of sexual assault). !

In response to this quandary, one commentator has

suggested that courts use a “confidence analysis” in cases involving

circumstantial allegations. See Luke Meier, Probability,

Confidence, and Twombly’s Plausibility Standard, 68 S.M.U. L.

Rev. 331, 380-81 (2016). But that metric—though analytically

interesting—does not provide any practical or helpful guidance to

courts on the ground. If a court uses the “merely consistent”

concept, it will in essence be deciding the issue of pretext at the

motion to dismiss stage, where a complaint must be allowed to

proceed “even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [the

alleged] facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and

unlikely.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

Given that the Supreme Court has used the “merely

consistent” concept in a case involving claims of intentional

discrimination, see Jgba/, 556 U.S. at 678, and that our circuit has

followed suit in some cases, see, e.g., Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna

Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010), I do not fault the

majority for doing the same here. See Maj. Op. at 23. But that does

not mean that the “merely consistent” formulation is appropriate

or workable in a case like this one. For one thing, it conflicts with

our obligation to draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor

1 More on Swierkiewicz a bit later.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 39 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 7

at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage even when the competing inferences are

equally plausible. See, e.g., Worthy v. City of Phenix, Ala., 930 F.3d

1206, 1214 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[A]t [the motion to dismiss] stage,

when there are two equally plausible ways to read a complaint, we

should adopt the reading that is most favorable to [the plaintiff].”).

Indeed, several circuits have cautioned against relying on

the “merely consistent” (i.e., “alternative explanation”) concept in

Title IX cases. For example, in Doe v. Columbia University, 831

F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 2016), the Second Circuit rejected the district

court’s conclusion that any alleged bias in favor of the complainant

“could equally have been—and more plausibly was—prompted by

lawful, independent goals, such as a desire. . .to take allegations of

rape on campus seriously and to treat complainants with a high

degree of sensitivity.” It emphasized that a court is “obligat[ed] to

draw reasonable inferences in favor of the sufficiency of the

complaint,” and explained that “/gba/ does not require that the

inference of discriminatory intent supported by the pleaded facts

be the most plausible explanation of the defendant’s conduct. It is

sufficient if the inference of discriminatory intent is plausible.” /d.

The Sixth and Ninth Circuits have taken similar approaches. See

Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 586 (6th Cir. 2018) (“[O]ne plausible

explanation is that the Board discredited all males, including Doe,

and credited all females, including Roe, because of gender bias.”);

Schwake v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 967 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2020)

(“Sex discrimination need not be the only plausible explanation or

even the most plausible explanation for a Title IX claim to

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 40 of 60

8 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

proceed.”). These cases make sense to me, and I would likewise

not use the “merely consistent” concept here.

I

I agree with the majority’s articulation of the substantive

Title IX standard. See Maj. Op. at 16-19. This standard is not

inconsistent with the recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton Cnty.,

140 S. Ct. 1731, 1739 (2020) (using but-for causation for Title VID,

as some courts have noted. See Sheppard v. Visitors of Va. St.

Univ., 993 F.3d 230, 236-37 (4th Cir. 2021). The more difficult

question is whether Mr. Doe’s complaint alleges a plausible claim

of sex discrimination under Title IX.

A

In Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563, the Supreme Court cited its

prior decision in Swierkiewicz with approval. Swierkiewicz held

that a Title VII plaintiff need not allege a prima facie case of

discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss, and that the

complaint in that case “easily” stated a claim for relief. See 534 U.S.

at 514-15. In his complaint, the plaintiff in Swierkiewicz “alleged

that he had been terminated on account of his national origin in

violation of Title VII and on account of his age in violation of the

ADEA.” /d. at 514. The complaint “detailed the events leading to

his termination, provided relevant dates, and included the ages and

nationalities of at least some of the relevant persons involved with

his termination. These allegations g[ave] [the defendant] fair notice

of what [the plaintiffs] claims [were] and the grounds on which

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 41 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 9

they rest[ed]. In addition, they state[d] claims upon which relief

could be granted under Title VII and the ADEA.” /d. (citations

omitted).?

Aside from conclusory claims that his demotion and

termination had been on account of his national origin and age, the

plaintiff in Swierkiewicz alleged that he had done his job in a

“satisfactory and exemplary manner;” that his replacement after

the demotion was “far less experienced and less qualified;” that his

supervisor had said he wanted to “energize” the department in

question; that he had been “isolated” after his demotion; that there

were several years of “ongoing discrimination on account of his

national origin and age;” that his grievances were not addressed or

responded to; that the company had “no valid basis” to fire him;

and that his national origin and age were “motivating factors” in

the termination decision. See Complaint at 4-6 F¥ 18, 22, 23, 29,

31, 36, 37, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 86 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas.

(BNA) 1324 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Because the complaint in

Swierkiewicz—which was relatively sparse—was sufficient to state

plausible discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADEA,

figuring out the sufficiency of Mr. Doe’s Title IX discrimination

claim is no easy matter.

2 For ease of reference, a copy of the complaint in Swierkiewiczis attached as

an appendix.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 42 of 60

10 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

In most cases, procedural irregularities in a university’s

investigation of a sexual assault claim and an alleged erroneous

outcome in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding will not, by

themselves, make out a plausible Title IX claim of sex

discrimination. See Yusuf v. Vassar Coll, 35 F.3d 709, 715 (2d Cir.

1994) (“[A]llegations of a procedurally or otherwise flawed

proceeding that has led to an adverse and erroneous outcome

combined with a conclusory allegation of gender discrimination is

not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”). See also Doe v.

Univ. of Dayton, 766 F. App’x 275, 281-82 (6th Cir. 2019). But as

the number of irregularities increases, or the irregularities become

more serious (for example, a failure to interview the accused’s

witnesses), or the erroneous outcome becomes more glaring, the

needle starts moving toward plausibility. See Doe v. Oberlin Coll,

963 F.3d 580, 588 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[W]hen the degree of doubt

passes from articulable to grave, the merits of the decision itself, as

a matter of common sense, can support an inference of sex bias.”)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Accord Menaker v. Hofstra

Univ., 935 F.3d 20, 35 (2d Cir. 2019) (criticizing the district court for

not adhering to the Rule 12(b)(6) standard in “minimiz[ing] or

explain[ing] away...clear procedural irregularities”); Doe v. Miami

Univ., 882 F.3d 579, 593-94 (6th Cir. 2018) (concluding that the

plaintiffs allegation that “every male student accused of sexual

misconduct...was found responsible for the alleged violation”

showed a “pattern of gender-based decision-making” in the

university's Title IX investigations); Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d

652, 669 (7th Cir. 2019) (ruling that a Title IX investigator’s basis

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 43 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 11

for believing the complainant was “perplexing” given that she

never spoke with the complainant directly); Doe v. Univ. of Ark.-

Fayetteville, 974 F.3d 858, 864 (8th Cir. 2020) (concluding that the

hearing panel’s decision to credit the complainant’s claim that she

was incapacitated and therefore could not consent was “against the

substantial weight of the evidence”); Schwake, 967 F.3d at 949

(finding sex discrimination in part due to the university’s “gender-

based decision[-]Imaking against male respondents in sexual

misconduct disciplinary proceedings”).

Here, it seems to me that Mr. Doe’s collective allegations of

procedural irregularities fall short of the plausibility mark. See Doe

v. Princeton Univ., 790 F. App’x 379, 384 (3d Cir. 2019) (plaintiff's

grievances about the investigative process were insufficient to

make out a Title IX discrimination claim because none of the facts

alleged “indicat[ed] that any of [the] alleged unfavorable treatment

was due to his sex”). Starting with the purported lack of notice,

Mr. Doe was told before his first interview that there was an

allegation that he had raped Ms. Roe. Although Mr. Doe was not

provided with specifics, he knew what the basic charge was before

he met with the investigator for his interview. As to the allegedly

inflammatory statements made by law enforcement (the substance

of which Mr. Doe did not include in his complaint), I do not view

their inclusion in the investigative report as an irregularity. Simply

stated, there is no prohibition in Samford’s Title IX policy against

the inclusion of hearsay in that type ofreport. With respect to the

rejection of the medical evidence by the appeal board, I agree with

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 44 of 60

12 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

the majority that Mr. Doe has not alleged (i.e., explained) why that

evidence was not reasonably available to him before the hearing.

As a result, there is no reasonable inference that the appeal board

committed an error in refusing to consider the evidence. The

failure to redact the portions of the investigative report containing

the statements of witnesses who did not testify at the evidentiary

hearing is more concerning. But the appeal board attributed that

irregularity to inexperience and adjustment to the new Title IX

policy, and Samford’s policy did not permit consideration of those

statements.’

Turning to the allegedly erroneous outcome, Samford’s

decision finding Mr. Doe responsible does not appear—based on

the allegations in the complaint—to be glaringly wrong. Ms. Roe

testified at the hearing and explained that her ability to consent to

intercourse with Mr. Doe was impaired by alcohol consumption.

Although Ms. Roe had initially claimed that she had been drugged

by Mr. Doe, the hearing panel knew about the prior inconsistent

claim and was able to judge the credibility of Ms. Roe (and, for that

matter, Mr. Doe). Cf Rossley v. Drake Univ., 979 F.3d 1184, 1193

(8th Cir. 2020) (“We conclude. . .that whatever the deficiencies in

3 Mr. Doe does not allege that the hearing panel or the appeal board relied on

the statements of the witnesses who did not testify, and Samford’s Title IX

Policy expressly prohibits the panel and the board from relying on those state-

ments. See D.E. 1-1 at 35. Furthermore, the investigative report included not

only the statements of witnesses who confirmed Ms. Roe’s account of the in-

cident, but also the statements of witnesses who discredited Ms. Roe’s claim

of incapacitation. See D.E. 1 at 19 9141.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 45 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 13

[the] investigation, they did not result in findings so devoid of

substantive content as to be unworthy of credence.”).4

Mr. Doe also alleged that there had been seven reported

rapes on campus, that all of the accused students in those cases

were male, and that they were treated differently than a female

would have had she been charged with a similar offense. The

majority says that alleged pro-complainant bias does not lead to an

inference of discrimination on the basis of sex because both men

and women can be accused of assault. See Maj. Op. at 25. I’m not

sure that this is necessarily correct at the pleading stage if all of the

accused students at Samford have so far been male. Nevertheless,

I concur with the majority’s ultimate assessment of these

allegations for the simple reason that Samford does not decide who

is going to make a sexual assault complaint. In other words, the

sex of those who file such complaints is out of Samford’s hands.

And that makes it very hard to figure out how similarly situated

females would be treated if they were accused of sexual assault. See

Doe v. Trs. of Boston Coll, 892 F.3d 67, 91-92 (1st Cir. 2018) (“The

4Mr. Doe claims that the investigator’s statement to Ms. Roe during her initial

interview—‘T still think, regardless, you couldn’t give consent”—is evidence

of gender bias against him. See D.E. 1 at 18 4 131. But the investigator explic-

itly found Ms. Roe more credible than Mr. Doe because she had “several wit-

nesses who attested to her incapacitation.” See D.E. 1 at 19 9143. The hearing

panel’s agreement and the appeal board’s affirmance of the investigator's cred-

ibility determination is not against the substantial weight of the evidence given

the allegations in the complaint.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 46 of 60

14 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

gender of the students accused of sexual assault is the result of what

is reported to the [uJniversity, and not the other way around.”).

Finally, Mr. Doe cites to other evidence to provide

background for his claim of discrimination under Title IX. Many

of our sister circuits have concluded that evidence not specifically

pertaining to the plaintiff's own Title IX investigation and hearing

may be relevant in assessing the sufficiency of a complaint. This

evidence can include financial pressure from the government or

from interest groups, scrutiny from the media, and statements or

actions taken by the university, its employees, or fellow students

indicating a potential gender bias against students accused of sexual

misconduct. ‘Title IX plaintiffs typically present this type of

evidence to contextualize the actions taken by school officials

during the investigation and/or hearing. A review of Title IX cases,

however, leads me to conclude that the background evidence cited

in Mr. Doe’s complaint—the university magazine article, the

documentary, the “It’s on Us” campaign, and the Clay statistics—

does not make Mr. Doe’s claim of discrimination plausible. See

eg, Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d at 668-670 (concluding that

government financial pressure and a post with a link to an article

blaming men for the problem of sexual assault gave the plaintiff “a

story about why [the university] might have been motivated to

discriminate against males accused of sexual assault,” but could not

“standing alone” get him “over the plausibility line”); Baum, 903

F.3d at 586 (reasoning that the Department of Education’s ongoing

investigation into the university “provide[d] a backdrop that, when

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 47 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 15

combined with other circumstantial evidence of bias. . .gives rise

to a plausible claim”); Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d at 56-59

(concluding that intense public scrutiny and media attention of the

university's handling of sexual assault complaints could lead to pro-

female complainant bias).

B

So what is necessary to allege a plausible claim of sex

discrimination in violation of Title IX? I agree with the majority

that the text of Title IX requires allegations that would allow a

court to reasonably infer that Samford made its decision “on the

basis of sex.” I also agree that based on Mr. Doe’s complaint we

cannot plausibly infer sex discrimination by Samford in this case.

My discussion below discusses why our sister circuits in Purdue

University, Baum, and Columbia University ruled that the plaintiffs

in those cases did cross the plausibility threshold. My hope is that

the contrast will shed some light on the amorphous plausibility

standard in the Title IX setting.

In Purdue University, the Seventh Circuit was persuaded by

the plaintiffs allegation that the Title IX investigator chose to credit

the complainant’s account of the incident without talking to her

directly. See 928 F.3d at 669. An investigator can of course make

credibility determinations, but the Seventh Circuit found the

investigator's “basis for believing [the complainant]... perplexing,

given that [the investigator] never talked to [the complainant] and

instead relied on a letter relaying the complainant’s account

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 48 of 60

16 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

prepared by the director of the university’s center for victims of

sexual violence. Jd.

The allegations about the hearing also suggested that the

panel was biased against the plaintiff, who was male. Crediting the

plaintiffs allegations as true, the Seventh Circuit noted that “the

majority of the panel members appeared to credit [the

complainant] based on her accusation alone, given that they took

no other evidence into account.” See id The plaintiff was also

denied the opportunity to present any witnesses in his favor,

including an alibi witness, and he was unable to present evidence

of a potential source of the complainant’s anger toward him: his

reporting of her suicide attempt while they were dating. See id.

These allegations, viewed within the context of financial pressure

from the government and a post by a university organization

seemingly blaming men as a class for the problem of sexual assault,

led the Seventh Circuit to conclude that the plaintiff had pled a

plausible claim of discrimination on the basis of sex. See id at 667—

670.

The Sixth Circuit in Baum was concerned, based on the

allegations, that the hearing panel found the plaintiff culpable of

violating the university’s policy even though the Title IX

investigator had initially found in his favor. See 903 F.3d at 586. A

difference in credibility determinations from the investigator and

panel was not ipso facto evidence of sex discrimination, but the fact

that the investigator did her work over three months, “during

which she personally interviewed 23 witnesses and reviewed

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 49 of 60

21-12840 JORDAN, J., Concurring 17

evidence such as medical records, text messages, and video

recordings,” and that the subsequent university disciplinary panel

disregarded or placed little value on the findings of the report, gave

the Sixth Circuit pause. See Complaint at 7 ¥ 30, Doe v. Baum, 227

F. Supp. 3d 784 (E.D. Mich. 2017). The Sixth Circuit noted that the

hearing panel “credited exclusively female testimony...and

rejected all of the male testimony” and explained its decision by

saying that the accused’s witnesses (who were all male) “lacked

credibility because many of them were fraternity brothers.” Baum,

903 F.3d at 586. Given that the Sixth Circuit was required to

“view[ ] this evidence in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff],”

gender bias was certainly one plausible explanation. /d.

In Columbia University the Second Circuit spent

considerable time detailing the mounting pressure the university

was experiencing when it made its determination against the

plaintiff. In describing the university’s alleged “pro-female, anti-

male bias,” the Second Circuit concluded that the “biased attitudes

were, at least in part, adopted to refute criticisms circulating in the

student body and in the public press that [the university] was

turning a blind eye to female students’ charges of sexual assaults by

male students.” Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d at 56. It therefore

concluded that the failure of the investigator and hearing panel to

seek out the plaintiffs corroborating witnesses, and act in

accordance with the procedural policies of Title IX disciplinary

proceedings, could be the result of bias and made the

discrimination claim plausible. See id. at 56-57.

USCA11 Case: 21-12592 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 50 of 60

18 JORDAN, J., Concurring 20-10709

The allegations in these three cases do not set a floor for

plausibility in the Title IX context. But the cases taken collectively,

begin to piece together the sort of mosaic that will suffice. See also

Univ. of Ark.-Fayetteville, 974 F.3d at 864-66 (Title IX plaintiff

sufficiently made out a claim of sex discrimination by alleging that

the hearing panel’s decision was against the weight of the

substantial evidence, that lesser sanctions were imposed in order to

avoid negative media attention and to portray a stricter approach

to sexual assault, and that university was under pressure on

multiple fronts to find males responsible for sexual assaults).

Il

I agree with the majority that Mr. Doe has not alleged

sufficient facts to meet the plausibility standard. I do not, however,

believe that Twombly and Iqbal require plaintiffs to rule out in

their complaints plausible alternative reasons for the misconduct

they challenge. Title IX plaintiffs need only allege facts that would

allow us to infer a plausible claim of sex discrimination.

> With respect to Mr. Doe’s claim of selective enforcement, it too fails to cross

the plausibility threshold. There is no allegation that Samford, in addition to

yielding to external pressures, failed to investigate female students accused of

the same misconduct, as in Doe v. University of Sciences, 961 F.3d 203, 210

(3d Cir. 2020).

Page: 51 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AKOS SWIERKIEWICZ,

Plaintiff,

V. NO. 99 Civ. 12272 (LAP)

SOREMA, N.A.,

Defendant.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Akos Swierkiewicz, amends his complaint as a matter of course to state claims for welt Ee

against defendant, SOREMA, N.A., for violations of the New York State Executive Law, 3

§296 et seq. and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, §8-1 07 et seq.

1. This is an employment discrimination action brought by Akos

Swierkiewicz to recover damages againsi SOREMA N.A. (“SOREMA’) for the violation

of his rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e ef. seq. (“Title

Vil"); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq.

(“ADEA’), the New York State Executive Law, §296 et. seq, (the "Human Rights Law");

and the Administrative Cade of the City of New York, §8-107 et. sea. (the "City Law’).

URISDICTION AND VENUE

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. _ Jurisdiction over Mr. Swierkiewicz’s Title VII claim is conferred by vw

42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3). Jurisdiction over his ADEA claim is conferred by 29 U.S.C.

Page: 52 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

§626(c)(1). Supplemental jurisdiction over his Human Rights Law and City Law claims

is conferred by 29 U.S.C. §1367(a).

3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to the general venue

statute, 28 U.S.C. §1391, and under Title VIl's special venue statute, 42 U.S.C.

§2000e-5(f)(3).

PARTIES

4, Plaintiff, Akos Swierkiewicz, resides at 821 Hudson Drive, Yardley,

Pennsylvania 19067.

5. Defendant SOREMA is a New York corporation headquartered at

499 Water Street, 20° Floor, New York, New York 10038.

6. At all times relevant hereto, SOREMA has resided and conducted

business in this judicial district.

7. At all times relevant hereto, SOREMA has been an employer within

the meaning of Title VIl and the ADEA.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

8. On or about July 11, 1997 Mr. Swierkiewicz filed a Charge of

Discrimination against SOREMA with the Philadelphia District Office of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Charge No. 170971447, charging it

with unlawful national origin and age discrimination in connection with his dismissal

from employment.

Page: 53 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

9. By notice dated May 3, 1999 and which he received on May 5,

1999, Mr. Swierkiewicz was notified by the EEOC of his right to file a civil action against

SOREMA.

10. This lawsuit has been timely filed within 90 days of

Mr. Swierkiewicz’s receipt of the EEOC’s right-to-sue notice.

41. Pursuant to §8-502(c) of the City Law, prior to filing this Amended

Complaint, plaintiff Swierkiewicz served a copy of the Amended Complaint on the City

of New York Commission on Human Rights and the City of New York Corporation

Counsel.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

ee Ee

42. Mr. Swierkiewicz is a native of Hungary. He became a United

States citizen in 1970.

13. Mr. Swierkiewicz is 53 years old. His date of birth is July 25, 1946,

14. SOREMA was formed in 1989. It is a reinsurance company

principally owned and controlled by a French parent corporation. At all times relevant

hereto, SOREMA’s Chief Executive Officer has been Francois M. Chavel, a French

national.

145. From 1970 to 1986, Mr. Swierkiewicz was employed by INA which

after its merger in 1982 with Connecticut General, became CIGNA Insurance Company.

His last position at CIGNA was Vice President of Special Risk Facilities.

Page: 54 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

a

16. From 1986 to 1989, Mr. Swierkiewicz was employed by SCOR

U.S., a reinsurance company, as Senior Vice President for Research and Special

Risks.

47. On April 17, 1989 Mr. Swierkiewicz began his employment with

SOREMA in the position of Senior Vice President and Chief Underwriting Officer

(‘CUO’).

18. Inaill respects, Mr. Swierkiewicz performed his job in a satisfactory

and exemplary manner.

49. Despite plaintiffs steliar performance, in February 1995 Mr. Chavel

demoted him from his CUO position to a marketing and services position and

transferred the bulk of his underwriting responsibilities to another French national,

Nicholas Papadopoulo, who was 32 years old at the time (and 16 years younger than

plaintiff).

20. Mr. Chavel demoted Mr. Swierkiewicz on account of his national

origin (Hungarian) and his age (he was 49 at the time).

21. Avyear later, in or about February 4996, Mr. Chavel formally

appointed Mr. Papadopoulo as SOREMA’s CUO.

22. Mr. Papadopoulo was far less experienced and less qualified to be

SOREMA’s CUO than was Mr. Swierkiewicz. Indeed, Mr. Papadopoulo had just one

year of underwriting experience prior to being appointed CUO by Mr. Chavel. By

contrast, plaintiff had more than 26 years of broad based experience in the insurance

and reinsurance industry.

Page: 55 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

23. At the time Mr. Papadopoulo assumed plaintiffs duties as CuO,

Mr. Chavel stated that he wanted to “energize” the underwriting department -- clearly

implying that plaintiff was too old for the job.

24. In light of Mr. Papadopoulo’s inexperience, Mr. Chavel brought in

Daniel Peed from SOREMA's Houston, Texas office to support him in his CUO duties.

Mr. Peed, like Mr. Papadopoulo, was in his early 30s. Shortly after his transfer to

SOREMA's office in New York City, Mr. Chavel promoted Mr. Peed to the position of

Senior Vice President of Risk Property.

95. Prior to his transfer, Mr. Peed had been a Second Vice President

reporting to plaintiff.

26. Not !ong after plaintiff's demotion, SOREMA hired another French

national, Michel Gouze, as Vice President in charge of Marketing. Mr. Gouze, unlike

plaintiff, had very little prior experience in the insurance/reinsurance business.

27. Because of his inexperience, Mr, Gouze needed to rely on

Mr. Swierkiewicz to perform his marketing duties for SOREMA.

28. Mr. Gouze’s marketing duties at times overlapped with those of

plaintiff. Despite Mr. Swierkiewicz’s requests to better coordinate their duties,

Mr. Chavel refused to accommodate those requests or to have Mr. Gouze report to

plaintiff.

29. Mr. Swierkiewicz was isolated by Mr. Chavel following his

demotion, excluded from business decisions and meetings and denied the opportunity

to reach his true potential at SOREMA.

Page: 56 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

30. Efforts by Mr. Swierkiewicz to meet with Mr. Chavel to resolve the

unsatisfactory working conditions to which he was subjected following his demotion

proved unsuccessful.

31. On April 14, 1997, following two years of ongoing discrimination on

account of his national origin and age, Mr. Swierkiewicz sent a memo lo Mr. Chavel

outlining his grievances and requesting a severance package to resolve his disputes

with SOREMA.

32. Mr. Chavel did not respond to Mr. Swierkiewicz’s memo.

33. In the morning, on Tuesday April 29, 1997, Mr. Chavel and Daniel

E. Schmidt, IV, SOREMA’s General Counsel, met with Mr. Swierkiewicz and gave him

two options: either resign his job (with no severance package) or be fired.

34. Mr. Swierkiewicz refused to resign his employment with SOREMA.

35. As aresult, he was fired by Mr. Chavel, effective that very day

(April 29, 1997).

36. SOREMA had no valid basis to fire Mr. Swierkiewicz.

37. Plaintiffs age and national origin were motivating factors in

SOREMA’s decision to terminate his employment.

38. Unlike plaintiff who was fired without cause and without any

severance pay or benefits, SOREMA has provided generous severance packages to a

number of former executives for whom it had cause to terminate their employment.

These include, but are not limited to, the following individuals: Jay Kubinak, Thilo

Herda, Douglas Zale, Nigel Harley and Marcus Corbally.

6

Page: 57 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

39. As adirect and proximate cause of his being fired by SOREMA,

Mr. Swierkiewicz has suffered and will continue to suffer a substantial loss of earnings

to which he otherwise would have been entitled. This includes, but is not limited to, the

loss of his salary, bonus, automobile allowance and pension credits as well as the loss

of his medical and dental insurance, life insurance, short and tong term disability

insurance and the insurance he had for accidental death and dismemberment.

40. Asa further direct and proximate cause of his being fired by

SOREMA, Mr. Swierkiewicz has suffered damage to his reputation and harm to his

career. He has also experienced physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and the

loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures.

41. SOREMA acted willfully and in reckless disregard of Mr.

Swierkiewicz’s rights under Title VI! and the ADEA by discharging him from

employment on account of his age and national crigin.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF TITLE Vil

42. Mr. Swierkiewicz repeats and incorporates by reference the

allegations of paragraphs 1 - 41 of the Amended Complaint as if they were set forth in

full.

Page: 58 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

43. SOREMA terminated Mr. Swierkiewicz’s employment on account of

his national origin and thereby violated his right to equal employment opportunity as

protected by Title VII.

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADE

44. Mr. Swierkiewicz repeats and incorporates by reference the

allegations of paragraphs 1 - 43 of the Amended Complaint as if they were set forth in

full.

45. SOREMA terminated Mr. Swierkiewicz’s employment on account of

his age and thereby violated his right to equal employment opportunity as protected by

the ADEA.

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

46. Mr. Swierkiewicz repeats and incorporates by reference the

allegations of paragraph 1 - 45 of the Amended Complaint as if they were set forth in

full.

47. Sorema terminated Mr. Swierkiewicz’s employment on account of

his national origin and/or age in violation of his right to equal employment opportunity

as protected by the Human Rights Law, §296 et. seq.

Page: 59 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF THE CITY LAW

48. Mr. Swierkiewicz repeats and incorporates by reference the

allegations of paragraphs 1 - 47 of the Amended Complaint as if they were set forth in

full.

49. Sorema terminated Mr. Swierkiewicz's employment on account of

his national origin and/or age in violation of his right to equal employment opportunity

as protected by.the City Law, §8-1 07 et seq.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Mr. Swierkiewicz respectfully requests the Court to enter

judgment in his favor and against SOREMA, and to accord him the following relief:

(a) Back pay with prejudgment interest and all the fringe benefits to

which he is entitled;

(b) Front pay and benefits to the extent reinstatement is not feasible;

(c) Compensatory damages for his non-economic injuries in an

amount authorized by Title VI and by the Human Rights Law and the City Law,

(d) Punitive damages to punish and deter SOREMA from future acts of

employment discrimination in an amount authorized by Title VII and the City Law;

(e) Liquidated damages in an amount equal to twice Mr. Swierkiewicz's

back pay losses as authorized by the ADEA;

(f) An award of reasonable counsel fees and costs to compensate

Mr. Swierkiewicz for having to prosecute this action against SOREMA, and

Page: 60 of 60

Date Filed: 03/24/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-12592

(g} Such other legal and equitable relief or may be just and proper

under the circumstances.

JURY DEMAND

Mr. Swierkiewicz demands a trial by jury on all the issues in this action

that are triable by law.

Respectfully submitted,

\ yf : ‘ & U

ti kl eat fy

Harold |. Goodman, Esquire (HG 4895)

RAYNES, MCCARTY, BINDER, Ross & MUNDY

1845 Walnut Street, 20" Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215)568-6190

ANNE L. CLARK, ESQUIRE (AC 6456)

VLADECK, WALDMAN, ELIAS & ENGELHARD, P.C.

1501 Broadway, Suite 800

New York, NY 10036

(212}403-7332

Counsel for Plaintiff,

Akos Swierkiewicz