FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 12, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOHN OIRYA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 20-4052 (D.C. No. 2:16-CV-01121-BSJ) BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, (D. Utah) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This appeal is brought by Mr. John Oirya, a Kenyan citizen who attended Brigham Young University. During his time there, BYU investigated his role in separate incidents involving sexual harassment, an effort to retaliate, perjury, and submission of false financial information. * We conclude that oral argument would not materially help us to decide the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). So we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). The investigation led BYU to expel Mr. Oirya, and he sued under Title IX and state law. The district court granted summary judgment to BYU on these claims. Mr. Oirya appeals the award of summary judgment, and we affirm. I. We engage in de novo review, applying the same summary- judgment standard that governed in district court. We apply de novo review, exercising our independent judgment to determine whether BYU showed the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Foster v. Mountain Coal Co., 830 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir. 2016) (de novo review); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (standard for summary judgment). In determining whether BYU has made this showing, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences favorably to Mr. Oirya. Foster, 830 F.3d at 1186. II. BYU was entitled to summary judgment on the Title IX claims. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on gender. Throupe v. Univ. of Denver, 988 F.3d 1243, 1250–51 (10th Cir. 2021). Invoking this prohibition, Mr. Oirya claims that BYU committed gender discrimination, favoring his accuser because she was female. Though BYU did credit the accuser’s account, Mr. Oirya has not presented evidence tying the decision to his gender. 2 A. Mr. Oirya hasn’t presented evidence creating a reasonable inference of gender discrimination. Mr. Oirya asserts four theories of gender discrimination: 1. Erroneous outcome 2. Selective enforcement 3. Inadequate investigation 4. Deliberate indifference All of these theories fail as a matter of law. 1. Erroneous Outcome Title IX prohibits a university from reaching “an erroneous outcome in a student’s disciplinary proceeding because of the student’s sex.” Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 585 (6th Cir. 2018). Invoking this prohibition, Mr. Oirya contends that BYU erroneously found sexual harassment and an effort to retaliate against the accuser. We reject these contentions. a. Sexual …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals