College doctor’s financial/sexual/mentoring arrangement with non-student leads to Title IX claim

In Doe v. University. of MichiganDecided last Thursday by Judge Shalina Kumar (ED Mich.), Doe alleged that when she was a “nineteen-year-old student at Michigan State University,” she met Dr. Schoenfeld met, “a forty-nine-year-old gastroenterologist at the University of Michigan through an online website where they each sought a personal relationship. (Michiganders of all institutional allegiances will understand that the two universities are not the same.) According to Schoenfeld’s filing in a defamation suit he brought against Doe in California, the site was SeekingArrangement.com, and “the advertised purpose of Seeking Arrangement was to facilitate relationships between younger ‘sugar babies’ and more established ‘sugar daddies.’”

The summary of the facts and alleged facts by the Court shows

Doe hoped to go to medical school. Doe and Schoenfeld entered into a “mentoring relationship with intimacy,” in which Schoenfeld would pay Doe $1,250 a month and help her achieve her goal of attending medical school, and Doe would have sex with Schoenfeld and “maintain her appearance” . Doe alleges that Schoenfeld subjected her to sexual violence and abused her during the course of this relationship. Their sexual relationship lasted a few months, from February 2013 to May 2013. But Schoenfeld continued to mentor Doe so that she could one day gain admission to the university’s medical school.

There appears to be no dispute that the financial and sexual arrangement existed (Schoenfeld appears to have acknowledged this in the California defamation case). However, the allegations of sexual assault and abuse are highly controversial: as a result of the California lawsuit, Doe entered into a judgment dismissing the allegations as part of a settlement in which Schoenfeld promised to pay her and her then-attorney $150. K, although she is trying to rescind – more on that at the end of the post. Back to the court’s statements regarding the allegations in Doe’s complaint (which the court relied on for purposes of deciding the motion to dismiss):

In 2015, Schoenfeld offered Doe an internship at the university’s Taubman Center…. Doe accepted and began the internship without submitting any form of application, providing any identification, undergoing a background check, or completing any HIPAA compliance training. Indeed, Doe has not received any communications or confirmation from the university regarding an internship or job shadowing opportunity, nor has she signed any code of conduct statements, as is typically required.

Doe did not investigate whether she needed to take such steps to formalize the internship, and she did not receive an ID or visitor badge from the university to use while on site. Schoenfeld did not inform anyone at the university that he intended to have Doe shadow him, and the university administration and leadership did not approve any shadowing arrangement for Doe.

Without the university’s knowledge or prior approval, Doe shadowed Schönfeld at the Taubman Center more than once, although it is unclear how often. Doe estimates that she shadowed Schoenfeld at least once a week during the winter and summer of 2015. Schoenfeld states that Doe shadowed him less than ten times. These shadow visits consisted of Schoenfeld “asking individual patients if they would allow Ms. Doe to passively observe (their) interactions. If the patient provided verbal approval, (he) allowed Ms. Doe to observe.”

Schoenfeld allegedly assured Doe that he had received permission from the university before offering her the internship. However, during the internship, Schoenfeld instructed Doe that if anyone asked why she was in the premises, she was to tell the person that she was a family friend of Schoenfeld’s, which she later realized to avoid arousing their suspicions. He also instructed Doe to wear blue scrubs for the same purpose.

Doe ended her internship in August 2015 because she felt increasingly uncomfortable with Schoenfeld’s actions. For example, instead of using a public elevator, Schoenfeld took her alone via a private stairwell to the restricted floor of the Taubman Center, where he inappropriately touched her. Doe also felt increasingly uncomfortable with Schoenfeld’s written communications to her. Doe told Schoenfeld that she was done with the internship because she needed time to focus on her MCAT exam. But she left mainly because she felt sexually and verbally harassed by Schoenfeld. (Again, these all seem to be just Doe’s claims. -EV)

After Doe ended their relationship, Schoenfeld allegedly stalked her and approached her at an off-campus Walgreens in August 2017.

In January 2018, Doe contacted the university’s Title IX office to report Schoenfeld for rape and “predatory conduct.” …Defendants Baum and Seney, Title IX Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator of the University…informed Doe that they could not conduct a formal investigation because Doe was not an active student or employee of the University, but that they would conduct an informal investigation do according to her report….

In September 2019, Doe learned through a public post on social media that Schoenfeld was interviewing for a position at Stanford University that would involve both the practice of medicine and teaching. Out of concern that Schoenfeld would use this role to target Stanford students in the way he targeted Doe, Doe contacted Stanford’s Title IX office and reported her experiences with him.

After Doe began making accusations against him, Schoenfeld filed a defamation lawsuit against her in California. To settle that case, Doe eventually sent written statements to several private parties retracting some of her allegations against Schoenfeld. Doe subsequently filed this suit.

The court dismissed Doe’s Title IX claim:

As a threshold issue, Doe must have standing to file a Title IX claim. As a non-student, Doe obtains such status if she shows that she experienced discrimination “while participating in, or at least attempting to participate in,” a university educational program or activity. According to Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ. (6th Cir. 2022), even if the so-called internship was not a bona fide educational activity because it was merely a disguise for Schoenfeld’s exploitation, Doe could be considered “try to participate in an educational program” – and thereby gain de facto status – if she “believed that he or she was receiving a bona fide” internship at the university’s Taubman Center.

Defendants argue that the limited discovery conducted by the parties shows that Doe could not believe that she was attempting to participate in a bona fide internship. They point to evidence showing that (1) she engaged in lies and deceit with Schoenfeld about her presence at the Taubman Center; (2) she failed to investigate or comply with University policies or complete a required application, training, or background check; and (3) the university has not acknowledged, let alone given any express or implied permission for, her presence in the Taubman Center.

Doe fails to refute Defendants’ arguments and evidence. She alleges that Defendants failed to follow their policies and procedures in connection with her internship at Schoenfeld. But she does not dispute the evidence showing that she was guilty of lies and deceit during her internship, that she overlooked all the steps normally required to achieve a real university internship – such as submitting an application – and that she has not received administrative permission for her internship.

Furthermore, she provides no other evidence indicating that she believed she was attempting to participate in a legitimate university internship. Because the evidence shows that Doe did not believe that shadowing Schoenfeld at the Taubman Center was a bona fide internship offered by the university, the court dismisses her Title IX claim against the university for lack of standing.

Doe is now seeking to have the judgment set aside with the retractions, claiming that she signed it under duress from her then-attorney and that it violates a California statute limiting non-disclosure agreements regarding sexual harassment and assault; The California court refused to overturn the verdict and Doe appealed. I hope to blog separately about that interesting legal issue, as well as Doe’s retroactive pseudonymization in that California case (as well as her pseudonymization in the federal case).

Thomas L. Kent represents the University defendants in the Title IX case.