Title IX cases brought by students challenging university disciplinary proceedings often face significant hurdles at both the pleading and summary judgment stages. In our client’s case against Princeton University, both hurdles have now been cleared.
Our client was expelled following a university disciplinary proceeding. He alleges that the process was biased and failed to provide the impartial and unbiased process required by Princeton’s own rules, in violation of Title IX and his contract with the university.
In 2022, we won a precedential ruling at the Third Circuit that vacated the early dismissal of our client’s claims. That decision, Doe v. Princeton University, 30 F.4th 335 (3d Cir. 2022), known as Princeton III, together with Doe v. University of the Sciences, 961 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020), established the framework the Third Circuit now uses to evaluate Title IX claims in the student-discipline context.
On September 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Princeton’s motion for summary judgment on our client’s Title IX erroneous outcome claim and his breach-of-contract claim. Applying the framework established by Princeton III and University of the Sciences, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that gender was a motivating factor in his discipline, citing evidence concerning a potentially predetermined outcome, Princeton’s handling of the disciplinary process, external pressure on the University, and a pattern of adverse findings against male respondents. The court also found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Princeton breached its contractual obligation to provide an impartial and unbiased disciplinary process. These central claims will therefore proceed toward trial.
This ruling is a critical milestone for our client, who has been pursuing accountability since filing suit in 2020. The Glenn Agre team representing him includes partner Eddie Shapiro and associates Jewel Tewiah, Samuel Bieler, and Colleen Piasentin.