## Facts

- John Doe, an undergraduate education student, sought Washington teacher certification, which required an institutional affidavit of “good moral character.”
- A university certification specialist overheard another student recount an incident suggesting Jane Doe was in pain after sex with “John,” which the specialist associated with John Doe.
- University officials began an internal investigation into Doe’s fitness for certification, interviewing witnesses; Doe was not informed or included while the investigation was underway.
- The university concluded Doe lacked good moral character, refused to provide the affidavit needed for certification, and disclosed information about the allegations and its conclusions to certification authorities.
- Doe was later informed of the refusal and told he had no right to appeal.
- Doe sued the university and employees, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, FERPA violations actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and breach of contract based on university policies.
- A jury found for Doe on all claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed most of the judgment and ordered a retrial limited to defamation, concluding FERPA did not create enforceable individual rights under § 1983.
- The state supreme court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence and proper instructions supported the jury’s verdict on defamation, invasion of privacy, and breach of contract arising from the investigation and disclosures.
2. Whether the university owed Doe a tort duty to conduct a non-negligent investigation, supporting an independent negligence claim.
3. Whether FERPA’s nondisclosure provisions created a federal right enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, supporting damages for FERPA violations.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part and reversed in part the intermediate appellate decision.
- Reinstated the jury verdict on defamation, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and the FERPA-based § 1983 claim, finding proper instructions and substantial supporting evidence.
- Held there was no cognizable negligence claim because the university owed no tort duty to investigate allegations against Doe in a particular manner.
- Remanded with directions to reinstate judgment on all claims except negligence, which was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review defers to jury factfinding where evidence conflicts; a verdict stands if supported by substantial evidence and correct instructions.
- Statements communicating allegations and conclusions about a student’s misconduct and moral fitness may support defamation and privacy liability when treated as factual assertions and proven false or improperly publicized.
- University publications and policies may form part of an implied contract with students; departure from promised procedures or confidentiality obligations can support a breach of contract verdict.
- An institution’s decision to investigate alleged misconduct does not, by itself, create a general tort duty to conduct a reasonable investigation; negligent investigation is not an independent cause of action absent a recognized duty.
- FERPA provides no express private cause of action, but the court held (at the time) that FERPA’s nondisclosure provisions conferred an individual federal right enforceable via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

## Conclusion

The court largely restored the jury’s award against the university for reputational, privacy, contractual, and FERPA-related harms stemming from its investigation and disclosures, but rejected a standalone negligence theory because Washington tort law imposed no duty to investigate in a particular way.


Doe v. Gonzaga Univ., 143 Wash. 2d 687, 24 P.3d 390 (Wash. 2001)