191946P.pdf   12/18/2020  Jeremy Rowles  v.  Curators of the Univ. of MO
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  19-1946
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Erickson, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Title VI. The district court did not err in denying 
   plaintiff's motion to compel the production of Title IX evidence based on 
   its conclusion that the defendants' existing discovery responses were 
   sufficient for plaintiff to identify similarly situated comparators; with 
   respect to plaintiff's claim that similarly situated white students had 
   been less harshly disciplined for Title IX infractions, he failed to show 
   that similarly situated graduate students were treated differently based 
   on race; the University's Title IX policies provide adequate notice of 
   what conduct is prohibited and are not unconstitutionally vague as applied 
   to plaintiff; even if plaintiff had shown that he engaged in protected 
   "amorous" speech and that a causal connection existed between his speech 
   and his discipline, he cannot prevail on his First Amendment claim because 
   he cannot show that he was deprived of a clearly established 
   constitutional right; it is not clearly established that a suspension from 
   a University for a course of conduct found to constitute sexual harassment 
   and stalking based on sex could give rise to a First Amendment violation, 
   and the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the claim; claim 
   that the University's policies against sexual harassment and stalking 
   based on sex were overbroad in their prohibitions against non-threatening 
   speech was properly rejected based on plaintiff's failure to plausibly 
   allege that the policies have a real and substantial effect on protected 
   speech; it is further noted that the policies track nearly verbatim the 
   policies described in David ex rel LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Ed., 
   526 U.S. 629, 649-52 (1999); plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the 
   investigation in his case reached an outcome against the weight of the 
   evidence or allege any additional facts suggesting bias based on his sex; 
   selective enforcement claim rejected; plaintiff failed to state a 
   plausible claim for sex discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act 
   for the same reasons he failed to state a Title IX claim; plaintiff failed 
   to show race was either the contributing or motivating factors for the 
   discipline imposed against him.