Keith Schiebel, a veteran agriculture educator, brought the Mobile Maple Experience, an educational trailer, to the Schoharie Central School District. A month later, the district received a complaint from a student's mother alleging that Schiebel had reached around her daughter and touched her breast and buttocks while retrieving supplies. The district opened a Title IX investigation without providing Schiebel with specific details of the allegations or an opportunity to prepare. During a brief meeting, the Title IX coordinator, Kristin DuGuay, acted in a hostile manner, stating she felt threatened by Schiebel. DuGuay concluded the investigation found the allegations well-founded based largely on Schiebel's non-denial of a possibility that he may have reached around a student, and imposed a five-year ban on the program. Schiebel lost his job and sued, alleging sex discrimination under Title IX. The district court dismissed the federal claim, ruling that Schiebel failed to plausibly allege that gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding.
The Second Circuit applied the plausibility standard to determine if Schiebel's complaint stated a valid Title IX claim. The court analyzed two theories: deliberate indifference and official action. First, regarding deliberate indifference, the court found the school's investigation was so procedurally deficient that it constituted a sham. The district failed to provide timely notice of allegations, denied Schiebel the opportunity to present evidence or witnesses, and violated regulations requiring a separation between the investigator and decision-maker. Furthermore, the decision was inexplicable; the school treated Schiebel's statement that he 'may have reached around' a student as an admission of sexual harassment, despite his never admitting to touching a student in a sexual manner. The court reasoned that a process that ignores exculpatory evidence and relies on illogical reasoning suggests the school was indifferent to the truth. Second, regarding official action, the court found that the Title IX coordinator's behavior supported an inference of sex-based bias. DuGuay's statement that she felt threatened and needed to keep her 'back to the wall' reflected an assumption that men have a propensity to sexually harass women. Combined with the procedural irregularities, this allowed for a plausible inference that Schiebel was disciplined on account of his sex. The court rejected the argument that the bias was merely 'anti-respondent' rather than 'anti-male,' noting that the specific remarks and context supported a gender-based inference.
The decision allows Schiebel to proceed to discovery, meaning he can now depose witnesses and request documents to prove his claims of bias and procedural failure. It clarifies that male respondents in Title IX cases can plausibly allege sex discrimination by showing that a school's investigation was a sham or that decision-makers exhibited gender stereotypes. The case is remanded to the district court, which must also reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that were previously dismissed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download