More Title IX stuff re the UMn athletes punished for a sexual encounter. Out of state recent litigation opinions construing Title IX and sexual conduct sanctions, which may guide against pleading error or other traps for the unwary. There are two Ohio cases captioned Doe v. University of Ohio; with one case's facts relevant to off-campus jurisdiction of a university on a Title IX hunt, and another involving relief sought and a seldom known Constitutional immunity.

A QUICK POST: The headline generally suggests issues, and the cases online are linked for readers to have a look and see what they think. Legal jargon is involved.

Doe I: Online by two separate opinions, in chronological order oldest first, here and here.

Doe II: Online here.

Analysis would be tedious, this is not as the Tatro case from Minnesota where the question of off-campus jurisdiction was ducked so precedent does not exist, and Crabgrass readers can read from Google Scholar as the original source.

In Doe I, interestingly there WAS a transcript of a hearing, and discovery was requested and allowed, to see due process questions in an informed manner. It is the more interesting of the two cases; and a plea for immediate reinstatement might be a wise thing for the ten Gopher football athletes to request; reinstatement without blemish, so that even if holding an ultimate intent to transfer to another program the desire would be to boost transfer opportunity by removing a taint and transferring in good standing. That is suggested as needed to avoid an Eleventh Amendment State soverign immunity to suit in federal court for damages and other kinds of relief - really, even in the age of "notice pleading" there can be trap avoidance needs.

Hat tip again to this blog post, even with having to ferret out the cases because of authoring without linking.