Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 03-23-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: 21-1458
Judge: Matey
Court: United States Court of Appeals foe the Third Circuit on Appeal from the District of New Jersey (Essex County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Mike Bowen and Ed Shapiro
Defendant's Attorney: Stephen J. Kastenberg and Christopher Kelly
Description: Newark, New Jersey employment law lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a civil rights employment law theory.
There are two sides to every story. But a complaint need not tell both. John Doe’s Complaint plausibly tells his side, alleging that Princeton discriminated on the basis of sex while investigating Title IX claims filed against him. Discovery might not bear out Doe’s account, but he has satisfied his burden at this early stage. So we will vacate the District Court’s order dismissing the matter and remand for the rest of the story to develop.
On a motion to dismiss, a court must “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). Following that rule, we recount only the facts described in the Complaint.
John Doe and Jane Roe attended Princeton University where, after meeting during the fall of their freshman year, they began a steady, and steadily volatile, relationship. Arguments, sometimes violent, were common. During their first summer vacation, for example, Roe scratched and grabbed Doe’s arm while traveling with Doe’s family. And in what became part of Princeton’s investigation, the couple’s penchant for physical altercations extended to intimacy, including “consensual choking.” (App. at 43.)1 Soon enough, bad went to worse and, when Roe informed Doe she was dating others, Doe called the whole thing off. Except, it turned out, Doe had also been unfaithful. A revelation that did not sit well with Roe, so she began spreading rumors about Doe on campus. One such accusation: that Roe ended the relationship because Doe was physically abusive. And she threatened Doe directly: “take a year off and nothing will happen to you.”
Outcome: Doe’s Complaint provides sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief under both Title IX and New Jersey state law. We will vacate and remand to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: