United States Court of Appeals
`For the First Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 21-1227
`
`JOHN DOE,
`
`Plaintiff, Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`STONEHILL COLLEGE, INC.,
`
`Defendant, Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`[Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, U.S. District Judge]
`
`
`
`Before
`
`Gelpí, Lipez, and Howard,
`Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Timothy C. Woodcock, with whom Janna L. Gau and Eaton Peabody
`were on brief, for appellant.
`
`
`Christopher M. Iaquinto, with whom Philip J. Catanzano,
`Timothy D. Andrea, and Holland & Knight LLP were on brief, for
`appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`December 14, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. John Doe was expelled from
`
`Stonehill College for violating its sexual misconduct policy by
`
`engaging in "nonconsensual sexual intercourse." Seeking redress
`
`for what he alleges was an unfair and biased disciplinary process,
`
`Doe filed suit against Stonehill asserting, inter alia, breach of
`
`contract, sex discrimination in violation of Title IX, negligence,
`
`and defamation. In a thoughtful decision, the district court
`
`concluded that Doe's allegations were insufficient to support any
`
`of his claims, and it dismissed his complaint in its entirety
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doe v.
`
`Stonehill Coll., Inc., No. 20-10468-LTS, 2021 WL 706228 (D. Mass.
`
`Feb. 23, 2021), at *1. After review of the operative complaint
`
`and related materials, we reverse dismissal of the breach-of-
`
`contract claim but otherwise affirm the decision of the district
`
`court.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Because Doe appeals the dismissal of his complaint, "we
`
`rehearse the facts as they appear in the plaintiff['s] complaint[]
`
`(including documents incorporated by reference therein)."
`
`Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724, 728 (1st Cir. 2016).
`
`Here, we consider Doe's complaint, Stonehill's sexual misconduct
`
`policy -- titled "S1.14 Opposition to Sexual and Gender-Based
`
`Misconduct and Interpersonal Violence" ("the policy" or "the
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`sexual misconduct policy"1) -- and documents produced as part of
`
`Stonehill's investigation into Doe's conduct.2
`
`A. The Relationship between John Doe and Jane Roe
`
`
`
`
`
`Doe was admitted to Stonehill's class of 2021 in the
`
`spring of 2017. He subsequently joined a Facebook group for his
`
`class, where he met Jane Roe. They began to exchange messages
`
`through Snapchat, text, and Facebook. Once on campus, they
`
`continued to exchange messages and saw each other in person
`
`numerous times.
`
`
`
`
`
`In October 2017, the pair's relationship "grew to
`
`include sexual intimacy." Compl. ¶ 35. The complaint describes
`
`three sexual encounters prior to the incident at the heart of this
`
`case. Each involved Doe "us[ing] his fingers to stimulate" Roe,
`
`with Roe "physically communicat[ing] her consent by removing her
`
`clothing, allowing him to fondle her and to rub her bare skin, and
`
`by making her vagina more accessible to him." Id. ¶ 38; see also
`
`id. ¶¶ 41, 44. In at least the first two encounters, Doe asked
`
`Roe "if she wanted him to proceed" after he had already been
`
`
`1 We refer to "the sexual misconduct policy" for simplicity,
`although the policy has broader coverage.
`
`2 The policy and the investigation documents were attached to
`Doe's amended complaint, Stonehill's motion to dismiss, or Doe's
`opposition, and they were considered by the district court with
`the parties' acquiescence. See Stonehill Coll., 2021 WL 706228,
`at *1 & n.2. Neither party challenges the authenticity of these
`documents or argues that their consideration at this stage is
`improper.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`digitally stimulating her. Id. ¶¶ 38, 41. The first time, Roe
`
`responded that she did. Roe subsequently asked Doe during that
`
`first encounter to stop "because she had once been sexually
`
`assaulted," and "Doe did stop as requested." Id. ¶ 40. In the
`
`second encounter, when Doe asked for "permission to proceed," Roe
`
`responded with "the same physical cues as on the first incident
`
`and, when she wanted him to stop, she told him to stop, and he
`
`did." Id. ¶ 41. In the third encounter, Doe "[a]gain" initiated
`
`the sexual activity without first asking permission, "but [Roe]
`
`presented the same physical cues from prior interactions that she
`
`wanted him to proceed to digitally stimulate her." Id. ¶ 44.
`
`B. The November 19th Incident
`
`
`
`
`
`In the early morning hours of November 19, 2017, Doe
`
`received a Snapchat message from Roe stating that she was scared
`
`to walk back to her room alone from another dormitory, New Hall.
`
`Doe offered to walk her back, and she accepted the offer. Doe
`
`approached New Hall, but after receiving no response to a message
`
`asking Roe about her location, he started to walk to Roe's
`
`dormitory. He soon received another message from Roe saying that
`
`she had been talking to an ex-boyfriend on the phone and that she
`
`had made it back to her dorm. After Doe walked to Roe's room and
`
`knocked on her door, she opened the door and invited him in.
`
`
`
`
`
`Roe lay down on her bed, and Doe joined her. Roe then
`
`got up, removed her t-shirt to switch to a tank top and a fleece
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`pullover, and returned to lay next to Doe. Doe began rubbing Roe's
`
`back "and then moved his hand to her vagina and began to digitally
`
`stimulate her." Compl. ¶ 58. Roe began to make moaning noises
`
`and, when Doe stopped, "Roe rolled onto her back and made her
`
`vagina more accessible to him," which Doe believed was intended
`
`"to make it easier for him to continue stimulating her." Id. Doe
`
`asked Roe if she liked what he was doing, and she did not respond
`
`but "continued to make the moaning noises." Id. ¶ 59. Doe
`
`continued to touch Roe, but after a short time he asked if she
`
`wanted him to stop. Again, Roe did not respond. Instead, she
`
`rolled over so her back was to Doe and "began breathing heavily."
`
`Id. Doe asked if Roe was okay, and she responded "it's not you.
`
`It's ok." Id. ¶¶ 62, 263(I). Roe then rolled over toward Doe,
`
`and believing that she had gone to sleep, Doe left.
`
`
`
`
`
`Later that morning, Doe received Snapchat messages from
`
`Roe stating "things like, 'what just happened?'[,] 'that wasn't
`
`consensual,' and[] 'that wasn't ok.'" Id. ¶ 65. Doe responded:
`
`"Please forgive me for being a drunken idiot. I'd never want to
`
`hurt you." In a second message, he wrote: "I'm so really sorry I
`
`know I fucked up, I totally misread the situation. What can I do
`
`to make it right?" Id. ¶ 70. Doe avers that neither message was
`
`true because he "had not been drinking on the evening of November
`
`18-19[,] [h]e was entirely sober," and he "did not mistake the
`
`physical cues Jane Roe sent him." Id. ¶ 71. Rather, he claims
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`that he was puzzled and alarmed by her messages but accepted
`
`responsibility to make Roe "feel better about herself" because he
`
`knew that she "lacked self confidence and often felt vulnerable."
`
`Id. ¶¶ 66, 68, 72.
`
`
`
`
`
`The next day, November 20, Roe filed a sexual misconduct
`
`complaint against Doe. Michael Labella, Director of Community
`
`Standards at Stonehill, sent Doe a letter that same day informing
`
`him that an incident report had been filed and that a no-contact
`
`order was in place between him and Roe.
`
`C. Roe's Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`On November 21, Roe met with Stonehill's Title IX
`
`Coordinator3, Lily Krentzman, and provided a written statement.4
`
`In her statement, Roe described Doe as "a boy on the football team
`
`[with whom] I had previously made out sober twice in my room."
`
`Compl. ¶ 95. With respect to her interaction with Doe on November
`
`19, she described the incident as follows. When Doe arrived at
`
`her room, "she told him that she was 'drunk' and 'tired' and did
`
`
`3 Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by educational
`institutions that receive federal financial assistance. See 20
`U.S.C. § 1681(a). Such institutions are required to designate a
`"Title IX Coordinator" to "coordinate [their] efforts to comply
`with" the statute. 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(a).
`
`4 Roe's statement was quoted, apparently in full, in a memo
`to file prepared by Krentzman that was attached as an exhibit to
`the final report submitted by Stonehill's Title IX investigators.
`See infra. Krentzman reported that Roe had submitted her statement
`in writing because "[s]he was too nervous to speak."
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`not 'want to do anything.'" Id. ¶ 96(D). She then told him that
`
`she was going to bed, lay down, and closed her eyes. Doe tried to
`
`kiss her, and she stated, again, "stop, I'm drunk. I don't want
`
`to do anything with you." Id. ¶ 96(E)-(F). Doe started rubbing
`
`her back and her thigh and Roe started to fall asleep, but she
`
`described feeling "completely shocked, awake, startled, and[]
`
`taken aback," when Doe "moved his hand down [her] thigh quickly
`
`and brushed against [her] vagina." Id. ¶ 96(G)-(H). She pushed
`
`Doe away and said "I don't want to," but "then he started fingering
`
`[her]." Roe added that "she was 'too drunk to fight him off.'"
`
`Id. ¶ 96(I)-(J). Roe stated that she told Doe three or four more
`
`times to stop and that "I don't want this," but he continued. Id.
`
`¶ 96(K). Eventually, Roe "jumped to some sort of last ditch effort
`
`to save myself [and] started crying [and] hyperventilating" until
`
`she pretended to fall asleep and Doe left. Id. ¶ 96(L).
`
`
`
`
`
`The next day, November 22, Labella informed Doe by letter
`
`that Stonehill would be investigating the incident and that Roe
`
`alleged that Doe had violated a provision of the college's sexual
`
`misconduct policy by engaging in "nonconsensual sexual
`
`intercourse"5 with her. The letter noted that two Title IX
`
`
`5 The policy defines nonconsensual sexual intercourse as "the
`penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any
`body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another
`person, without the consent of the victim." Under the policy,
`"[c]onsent" is defined in part to "mean[] informed, freely, and
`voluntarily
`given
`agreement,
`communicated
`by
`clearly
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`investigators, David Bamford and Shayla Jordan, would be
`
`
`
`conducting the investigation.
`
`D. Stonehill's Investigation
`
`
`
`
`
`Stonehill's sexual misconduct policy provides for an
`
`investigative model encompassing the following steps:
`
`1.
`
`A report of sexual misconduct is referred to the
`
`college's Title IX investigators. The student accused
`
`of sexual misconduct must be notified of the report.
`
`2.
`
`Both the complainant and respondent may submit
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`"potential witness names and questions to be asked
`
`during the investigative process." The Title IX
`
`investigators have the discretion to assess the
`
`"appropriateness and relevance" of such submissions.
`
`Both parties have the right to "be informed of all
`
`witnesses being interviewed."
`
`After completing their investigation but before making
`
`their recommendation, the investigators "will offer to
`
`meet with [the parties] separately to discuss . . . the
`
`facts gleaned in the matter and to offer a final
`
`opportunity to the parties to ensure both have been
`
`afforded the opportunity to present all relevant
`
`witnesses and evidence before the finding is reached."
`
`
`understandable words or actions, to participate in each form of
`sexual activity."
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`Both parties will "[b]e allowed to review and respond to
`
`pertinent evidence received" and "to review and respond
`
`to the investigative report before it is submitted to
`
`the Ass[ociate] Vice President for Student Affairs/Dean
`
`for Students ['AVPSA']."6
`
`6.
`
`After "the facts that will be used to reach the outcome
`
`are shared with the parties," the investigators will
`
`submit a final report to the AVPSA. The final report
`
`"will contain factual findings and a recommendation of
`
`responsibility as to the original claim and/or any
`
`lesser offense."
`
`7.
`
`In making their final recommendation to the AVPSA, the
`
`investigators apply a preponderance of the evidence
`
`standard and "must consider the totality of the evidence
`
`presented."
`
`8.
`
`The AVPSA "will determine if the facts gleaned in the
`
`investigation . . . align with the findings offered by
`
`the [i]nvestigator[s] and will then issue a formal
`
`decision in the matter, including sanctions." The
`
`parties must be notified within five business days, in
`
`writing, of the AVPSA's decision.
`
`
`6 These two rights were added to Stonehill's policy in a
`revised version dated December 2017. The parties presume that the
`revised policy applies to Doe's case, and we therefore do likewise.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`Either party "may submit a request for an appeal" of the
`
`AVPSA's decision to the Vice President for Student
`
`Affairs.
`
`
`
`
`
`On November 29, ten days after the incident, the Title
`
`IX investigators interviewed Roe for the first time. The
`
`investigators reported that, in the interview, Roe "stated that
`
`her written statement contained her account of the incident and
`
`that she preferred not to re-tell the details of the incident."
`
`However, according to the investigators' report, see infra, "[s]he
`
`did agree to answer questions about the statement and incident."
`
`In the interview, Roe reiterated the characterization of her
`
`relationship with Doe that was included in her written statement
`
`-- i.e., that they were "surface level friends" who had "made out"
`
`twice in her room -- and she again failed to report that the
`
`previous encounters involved consensual digital penetration of her
`
`vagina.7
`
`Doe was interviewed on December 8 with his attorney
`
`present. He also provided a written statement to the investigators
`
`that described his interactions with Roe throughout the fall of
`
`2017. Doe's complaint does not specify what the investigators
`
`told him about the content of their interview of Roe, but his
`
`
`7 As described infra, Roe acknowledged in a later interview
`with the investigators that the "previous encounters in her room
`involved consensual sexual contact" that "includ[ed] digital
`penetration of her vagina."
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`description of what he told the investigators includes responses
`
`to details of Roe's account.8 The investigators also informed Doe
`
`that Roe had provided a witness (Witness #2) who could confirm
`
`that Doe was in Roe's dorm room that night. Doe identified a
`
`witness (Witness #1) who could corroborate that he had not been
`
`drinking that night. Doe understood the investigators to say they
`
`were unlikely to interview either witness, although both were later
`
`interviewed.
`
`
`
`
`
`On December 20, the investigators informed Doe that the
`
`"interview phase" of the investigation had concluded and asked to
`
`meet with him to review the case before they prepared their report.
`
`However, as described infra, when the investigators met with Roe
`
`on December 28 to review their findings, they evidently
`
`requestioned her based on the version of events obtained from Doe
`
`on December 8. It was apparently during this second interview
`
`that Roe first admitted that the "previous encounters in her room
`
`involved consensual sexual contact" that "includ[ed] digital
`
`penetration of her vagina." On January 12, 2018, the investigators
`
`reviewed their factual findings with Doe and his attorney over the
`
`
`8 For example, Doe alleges that he told the investigators
`that, "at no point did Jane Roe 'pull away, ask [John Doe] to
`stop,'" "'or protest in any manner.'" Compl. ¶ 263(F) (alteration
`in original). In his brief on appeal, Doe indicates that, before
`his interview, he received a copy of the memo drafted by Krentzman,
`Stonehill's Title IX Coordinator, which included Roe's written
`statement.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`phone and said they would be preparing and forwarding a written
`
`report of the disputed and undisputed facts. On January 23, the
`
`investigators sent Doe their written findings of fact and gave him
`
`seven days to submit a response.
`
`The written findings document, which spanned five pages,
`
`contained background information on the investigation, several
`
`provisions from the sexual misconduct policy, and "Findings of
`
`Fact" consisting of summaries of witness interviews, including the
`
`interviews of Witness #1 and Witness #2. The investigators stated
`
`that Roe had described the pair's relationship as "surface level
`
`friends" who "would say 'hello' if they saw each other on campus."
`
`In the passage recounting their past intimate activity, Roe was
`
`quoted as saying that "the two occasions when she 'made out' with
`
`[Doe] in her residence hall room were in late September or early
`
`October." In the next sentence, however, the investigators stated
`
`that Roe had "clarified" that the previous encounters in her room
`
`"involved consensual sexual contact, including digital penetration
`
`of her vagina." The written findings also reported Roe's
`
`contention that she was drunk on the night of November 18-19, "but
`
`'not slipping over myself' drunk." She had elaborated that, "on
`
`a scale of one to ten, with ten being very drunk[,] she was probably
`
`a six."
`
`After reviewing this document, Doe and his attorney
`
`asked that the final report make explicit that Roe had admitted to
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`a previous, consensual sexual relationship with Doe only in a
`
`second interview. Jordan, one of the Title IX investigators,
`
`replied that they would include that information in their final
`
`report.
`
`E. Adjudication of the Final Report
`
`
`
`
`
`On approximately February 7, the investigators submitted
`
`a final, two-part report to AVPSA Kevin S. Piskadlo. Part 1 of
`
`the report was the document previously shared with Doe and Roe.
`
`Part 2 of the report -- which the parties had not reviewed --
`
`presented a list of disputed and undisputed facts, a section
`
`labeled "Credibility Assessment," and a section labeled
`
`"Investigative Findings."9 The findings section consisted of a
`
`single sentence: "The [i]nvestigators determined that based on a
`
`preponderance of the evidence it is more likely than not that [Doe]
`
`violated Policy S1.14, specifically, non-consensual digital
`
`penetration of the vagina."
`
`
`
`
`
`Part 1 of the final report did not include the revision
`
`Doe had requested concerning Roe's evolving description of their
`
`prior relationship. Instead, the investigators simply reported in
`
`
`9 Stonehill's policy does not explicitly provide for the
`creation of a bifurcated report, but the investigators may have
`prepared and distributed Part 1 to comply with the requirement in
`the policy that they share "the facts gleaned in the matter" with
`the parties before making a final recommendation. Doe did not
`receive Part 2 until he was given a copy of the final report after
`he was told the outcome of the investigation on February 12. See
`infra.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Part 2 that the nature of their relationship "was clarified by
`
`[Roe] in the review of facts."10
`
`
`
`
`
`Part 2 also included other information that was not in
`
`Part 1. It added to Roe's description of her level of
`
`intoxication. The investigators stated that, "[d]uring the course
`
`of the investigation [Roe] indicated that she believed that she
`
`was intoxicated to the point of incapacitation and was, therefore,
`
`unable to consent to sexual activity." Part 2 also highlighted an
`
`exchange between Roe and Witness #2 shortly after Doe's visit to
`
`Roe's room in which Roe allegedly repeated the comment, conveyed
`
`to Doe in a Snapchat message, that her interaction with Doe "wasn't
`
`ok." The investigators observed that "[t]he comment made by [Roe]
`
`to her hall mate soon after the incident supports her statements
`
`and belief that the sexual contact was unwanted." This exchange
`
`did not appear in the summary of Witness #2's interview in Part 1
`
`of the report, and thus was not disclosed to Doe when the
`
`investigators reviewed Part 1 of the report with him.
`
`
`
`
`
`Several days after the investigators submitted their
`
`report, Doe met with Piskadlo, who informed him that he had been
`
`found in violation of Stonehill's prohibition on "nonconsensual
`
`sexual intercourse." Piskadlo also gave Doe a letter stating that
`
`
`10 Stonehill notes in its brief that "Roe was interviewed
`twice, on November 29 and December 28," and it is therefore
`undisputed that the latter meeting was at least partially a second
`interview and not merely a review of previously obtained facts.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Piskadlo had reviewed the investigators' final report and he was
`
`dismissing Doe from Stonehill.11 Doe alleges that Piskadlo told
`
`him that expulsion was the only permissible sanction for such a
`
`violation.12
`
`
`
`
`
`Doe appealed Piskadlo's decision to Pauline Dobrowski,
`
`Stonehill's Vice President for Student Affairs, submitting a
`
`detailed, thirty-seven-page memorandum that primarily alleged
`
`procedural problems with Stonehill's investigation into Roe's
`
`complaint. Dobrowski denied Doe's appeal, stating in a letter
`
`that, after reviewing Doe's materials and the investigative
`
`report, she had "determined that the [i]nvestigators' process was
`
`compliant with our policy and that there was no new information
`
`presented that would have impacted the outcome."13
`
`
`11 The contents of Piskadlo's letter are described infra.
`
`12 Stonehill's sexual misconduct policy does not specify what
`sanctions will apply to any given situation but does say that
`sanctions "includ[e] dismissal from the College."
`
`13 The new information that Doe offered in his appeal consisted
`of Facebook Messenger messages that he had exchanged with Roe
`during the summer and fall of 2017 that he said he
`had recently been able to recover. See Compl. ¶ 424. Doe asserted
`that those messages support his explanation for the Snapchat
`messages he sent to Roe on the morning of November 19.
`Specifically, he argued that they
`
`show that [Roe] shared her fears and
`apprehensions with him and that he was
`invariably supportive. They show that he
`always encouraged her, spoke highly of her,
`and, at one point when she appeared to be in
`crisis, provided her with [a] "helpline" where
`she could get assistance.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`F. Procedural History
`
`
`
`
`
` Doe filed this action against Stonehill in March 2020.
`
`In his lengthy amended complaint, which spans 569 paragraphs and
`
`more than 120 pages, Doe alleges breach of contract, sex
`
`discrimination in violation of Title IX, unjust enrichment,
`
`promissory estoppel, negligence, defamation, fraud, negligent
`
`infliction of emotional distress, breach of the covenant of good
`
`faith and fair dealing, and breach of the common law duty of
`
`fairness. Doe sought a declaratory judgment stating that, inter
`
`alia, Stonehill's investigation violated various rights, the
`
`finding of responsibility against him was illegal, and Stonehill's
`
`policies violate Title IX; a permanent injunction compelling
`
`Stonehill to vacate its findings and remove all negative references
`
`from Doe's record; and attorney's fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`At the heart of Doe's complaint, as described in more
`
`detail below, are allegations of multiple procedural errors in the
`
`investigation that Doe claims denied him the fair and thorough
`
`process promised by Stonehill's sexual misconduct policy. He
`
`asserts that those errors affected the misconduct inquiry and
`
`
`These communications show that he
`
`. . . viewed her as vulnerable and fragile.
`With these impressions clearly documented in
`their Facebook communications, these messages
`are consistent with John Doe's willingness on
`the morning of November 19 to take
`responsibility via Snap[c]hat for a wrong he
`never committed.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`resulted in his unjustified expulsion from Stonehill. He further
`
`claims that the flaws in the proceedings resulted from sex bias on
`
`the part of Stonehill's investigators and administrators. See,
`
`e.g., Compl. ¶ 488 ("The proceeding by which he was found to be
`
`responsible for the alleged sexual misconduct was flawed and
`
`fundamentally biased and unfair."); id. ¶ 490 ("The particular
`
`circumstances suggest that gender was a motivating factor behind
`
`the erroneous finding.").
`
`Stonehill moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
`
`state a claim. After a hearing, the district court concluded that
`
`Doe failed to plausibly state a claim for relief under any of the
`
`causes of action asserted in his complaint and granted Stonehill's
`
`motion as to all counts. Stonehill Coll., 2021 WL 706228, at *1.
`
`Doe timely appealed.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`We review de novo the district court's dismissal of a
`
`complaint for failure to state a claim. Saccoccia v. United
`
`States, 955 F.3d 171, 174 (1st Cir. 2020). In doing so, we
`
`"assum[e] that all pleaded facts and reasonable inferences drawn
`
`from them are true." Union of Concerned Scientists v. Wheeler,
`
`954 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2020). To survive a motion to dismiss,
`
`a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim
`
`for relief. Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d
`
`50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). In this context, plausible "means
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`something more than merely possible, and gauging a pleaded
`
`situation's plausibility is a 'context specific' job that compels
`
`us 'to draw on' our 'judicial experience and common sense.'" Id.
`
`(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)).
`
`
`
`
`
`We consider each of Doe's asserted causes of action that
`
`he raises on appeal.14
`
`A. Breach of Contract
`
`As we have previously explained, "[a] student's
`
`relationship to his university is based in contract." Havlik v.
`
`Johnson & Wales Univ., 509 F.3d 25, 34 (1st Cir. 2007). Stonehill
`
`does not dispute that its sexual misconduct policy establishes a
`
`contractual relationship between the college and Doe. Doe's claim
`
`that Stonehill breached the terms of this policy -- and thus his
`
`contract with the college -- is governed by Massachusetts law.
`
`Cloud v. Trs. of Bos. Univ., 720 F.2d 721, 724 (1st Cir. 1983).
`
`Massachusetts recognizes two distinct theories of breach
`
`of contract between a student and an educational institution.
`
`Under the "reasonable expectations" theory, a court must consider
`
`"the standard of 'reasonable expectation -- what meaning the party
`
`making the manifestation, the university, should reasonably expect
`
`
`14 The district court concluded that Doe waived his unjust
`enrichment, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims. Stonehill
`Coll., 2021 WL 706228, at *17. Doe does not challenge that
`determination on appeal, so we likewise treat those claims as
`waived.
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`the other party to give it.'" Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 735 N.E.2d
`
`373, 378 (Mass. 2000) (quoting Cloud, 720 F.2d at 724). We are
`
`mindful that "a student's expectation can be reasonable even if
`
`the precise expectation is not stated explicitly in the contract's
`
`language." Sonoiki v. Harvard Univ., 37 F.4th 691, 709 (1st Cir.
`
`2022). Instead, the appropriate inquiry is whether "the student's
`
`expectation, viewed objectively alongside the express terms of the
`
`contract, is based on the student's fair interpretation of the
`
`contract's provisions." Id. Thus, we review "whether [Doe] has
`
`asserted facts which established that [Stonehill] failed to meet
`
`his reasonable expectations, thereby violating its contract with
`
`[him]." Schaer, 735 N.E.2d at 378. Of course, as with any breach-
`
`of-contract claim in Massachusetts, Doe also must show that he
`
`suffered harm from the contractual breaches he alleges. See, e.g.,
`
`Squeri v. Mount Ida Coll., 954 F.3d 56, 71 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing
`
`Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hosp., 46 N.E.3d 24, 39 (Mass. 2016)).
`
`The second theory of contractual breach focuses on
`
`whether the student was treated with "basic fairness." Schaer,
`
`735 N.E.2d at 380. Broadly, the basic fairness framework ensures
`
`that "[a] private school may not arbitrarily or capriciously
`
`dismiss a student or do so in bad faith." Driscoll v. Bd. of Trs.
`
`of Milton Acad., 873 N.E.2d 1177, 1187 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007).
`
`Stonehill's obligation to act with basic fairness flows from the
`
`sexual misconduct policy's explicit commitment to provide a "fair"
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`
`
`investigative process and the college's "independent duty to
`
`conduct disciplinary procedures with basic fairness imposed by
`
`Massachusetts law." Doe v. Trs. of Bos. Coll. ("Bos. Coll. I"),
`
`892 F.3d 67, 87 (1st Cir. 2018).
`
`Doe's sprawling complaint alleges numerous ways in which
`
`the Title IX investigators and the college's administrators failed
`
`to conduct his disciplinary proceedings consistently with
`
`Stonehill's sexual misconduct policy and thus breached his
`
`contract with the college. Although Doe faults the district court
`
`for not addressing many "discrete instances of Stonehill's
`
`contract breaches," Appellant's Br. at 30, we are satisfied that
`
`the court considered the procedural deficiencies that warranted
`
`its attention, albeit sometimes in its analysis of Doe's Title IX
`
`claim. See, e.g., Stonehill Coll., 2021 WL 706228, at *1