Whether the proper test for sex discrimination under Title IX should be the test stated in Doe v. Purdue

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should this Court resolve the conflict among the Circuits as to the proper test for sex discrimination under 20 U.S.C. § 1681 in Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 by adopting the test stated in Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652, 667 (7th Cir. 2019), as the governing rule? 2. Is it an important federal question whether the U.S. Supreme Court should adopt the superior method of analysis for determining sex discrimination under 20 U.S.C. § 1681 in Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, contained in the test stated in Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652, 667 (7th Cir. 2019), applied in accordance with governing motion to dismiss a summary judgment procedural rules, and dispense with use or purported use of the “selective enforcement” and “erroneous outcome” Second Circuit tests associated with Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994)? 3. Is it an important federal question whether procedural deficiencies in a college or university disciplinary proceedings combined with additional evidence of sex bias permit a sufficient inference of gender bias to avoid summary judgment when a student who alleges that a college or universityimposed discipline in violation of Title IX? ii PARTIES John Doe (“John Doe”), a Court authorized pseudonym, was a student at Defendant-Appellee Rollins College (“Rollins”). Rollins is a private educational institution in Winter Park, Florida, but participates in federal educational funding programs and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of Title IX. A fellow student Jane Roe, also a Court authorized pseudonym, accused John Doe of sexual assault and misconduct. Rollins conducted an investigation and, without the benefit of a hearing, found John Doe in violation of the Rollins sexual misconduct policy. While Rollins allowed John Doe to graduate and receive his undergraduate degree, John Doe was not allowed to participate in graduation ceremonies and was dismissed with no opportunity for readmission, with no opportunity to participate in alumni reunion events and with a contact restriction as to Jane Roe. (la-2a; 77 F.4th 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 2023).)! 1 Citations in this Petition will be to the