In recent years, the use of the term “rapist” on campus has sparked significant legal debate in Title IX higher education cases. Two notable cases, Nungesser v. Columbia University and the more recently decided Doe v. University of Maryland, provide contrasting judicial perspectives on this issue. In this legal update, we examine these cases, focusing on their legal reasoning, outcomes, and implications for educational institutions.

Nungesser v. Columbia University

In Nungesser v. Columbia University, a student at Columbia University, was accused of rape by a fellow student. Despite being found “not responsible” by Columbia’s Office of Gender-Based Misconduct, the Complainant continued to publicly label the Respondent as a “rapist” through her senior thesis project, the Mattress Project, which gained widespread media attention.  The Respondent filed a lawsuit against Columbia, alleging that the University violated his Title IX rights by allowing the Complainant to continue her campaign against him.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York eventually dismissed the Respondent’s Title IX claim, concluding that he failed to demonstrate that the harassment was based on his gender. The Court emphasized that the term “rapist” was used in the context of specific allegations rather than as a gendered slur. The Court also noted that Nungesser did not sufficiently allege a deprivation of educational opportunities, as required under Title IX. Columbia later settled with the Respondent out of court.

Doe v. University of Maryland

Doe v. University of Maryland involved a student at the University of Maryland who was similarly accused of sexual assault and subsequently exonerated by the University’s Title IX process. As in Nungesser, the Respondent faced a public campaign labeling him a “rapist,” which, in this case, led to his exclusion from campus activities, including the club lacrosse team. The Respondent sued the University of Maryland, claiming deliberate indifference to student-on-student harassment under Title IX.

The United State District Court for the District of Maryland found that the Respondent had presented sufficient evidence to proceed with his Title IX claim. The Court found that the persistent labeling of the Respondent as a “rapist” constituted sex-based harassment, as it was aimed at humiliating and ridiculing him based on his alleged sexual conduct. The Court also found that the harassment deprived the Respondent of educational benefits, as it led to his exclusion from extracurricular activities.

Analysis of the Legal Reasoning and Outcomes of these Cases 

The divergent outcomes in these cases highlight the nuanced application of Title IX. In Nungesser, the Court focused on the intent behind the use of the term “rapist” concluding that it was not used as a gendered slur but rather as a factual accusation, albeit false. The Court also emphasized the lack of a systemic impact on the Respondent’s educational experience.

Conversely, the Doe Court recognized the term as inherently sex-based when used to publicly shame and exclude the Respondent from educational opportunities. The Court found that the University of Maryland’s failure to address the harassment was “clearly unreasonable,” thus meeting the standard for deliberate indifference under Title IX.

Implications for Institutions of Higher Education

These cases underscore the importance of context and intent in these types of Title IX claims. Institutions must strike a balance between protecting speech and ensuring a non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory environment. This requires clear policies and procedures that address the use of potentially harmful language while safeguarding students’ rights. 

As a result of these cases, institutions of higher education should carefully consider the potential for actionable sex-based harassment claims when students are publicly labeled in this manner.  As part of this analysis, institutions should carefully evaluate the circumstances surrounding the use of such terms and the impact on the accused student’s educational experience.

Conclusion 

The contrasting decisions in Nungesser and Doe illustrate the complexities of Title IX cases that involve students using the term “rapist” to refer to a Title IX Respondent. Educational institutions must navigate these challenges with sensitivity and a commitment to equity, ensuring compliance with Title IX while protecting the rights of all students. By adopting clear policies, ensuring procedural fairness, and proactively managing risks, institutions can navigate these challenges effectively. For further guidance on your institution’s Title IX compliance and policy development, please contact your Hunton lawyer.