Princeton University/courtesy photo

A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a Title IX lawsuit against Princeton University in which a student alleged the school discriminated against him after he was sexually assaulted by another male student.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the ruling of U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan of the District of New Jersey that the plaintiff, referred to as John Doe, did not allege sufficient facts to sustain a claim.

Doe claimed that the university's treatment of his sexual assault claim was discriminatory, according to Third Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz's opinion.

Doe argued the school failed to accommodate him following the "significant stress and emotional upheaval" of the alleged assault by declining to issue a no-contact order on the alleged assailant and not giving him a time extension for a midterm exam.

"Doe asserts that Princeton is biased against male sexual assault complainants and that, had he been a 'female victim of sexual assault by a male assailant,' the proceedings would have been different," Shwartz said.

"Doe has not pleaded facts showing Princeton treated him differently because of his sex. His allegations that he 'would not have been subject to Princeton's discriminatory acts if he were a female victim,' and that 'Princeton also does not believe male students can be victims,' are too 'generalized' and 'conclusory' to raise an inference of disparate treatment," Shwartz added.

Doe also alleged that Princeton has a history of mishandling sexual assault complaints.

"He does not allege, however, that this 'mishandling' involved anti-male bias nor did he present factual allegations from which to infer 'a pattern of gender-based decision-making,'" Shwartz said. "Moreover, while Doe lists many grievances about how the process was conducted and how he was treated, he does not plead facts indicating that any of this alleged unfavorable treatment was due to his sex."

The plaintiff's claim that the school was deliberately indifferent to harassment, caused by the friends of his alleged assailant who the suit contends taunted him with gay slurs and called him a liar, also failed.

"Doe's claim that Princeton was deliberately indifferent to the allegedly hostile environment 'created' by Student X's friends also fails," Shwartz said. "Doe alleges that Princeton ignored his request for a no-contact order with Student X's friends who had 'harassed [him] on campus by yelling out a gay slur to him and calling him a liar.' The students' alleged 'harassment,' however, was not 'so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive' to constitute sexual harassment under Title IX. Doe's allegation that Student X's friends created a 'hostile environment' is conclusory, and one instance of being called a slur, while offensive, is neither severe nor pervasive."

Robert Fettweis of Fleming Ruvoldt represents Doe and did not respond to a request for comment.

Laurel Malson of Crowell & Moring represents Princeton and also did not respond to a request for comment.