Opinion ID: 4377578
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of Contract Against Swinton and NCHERM

Text: We next consider Doe’s breach of contract claims against Swinton and NCHERM arising from the investigation. Doe alleges that, because Dayton hired NCHERM and its employee Swinton to perform the Title IX investigation, there must have been a contract between them, the contract must have incorporated the terms of the Handbook and applicable federal law, and Doe must have been an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. We hesitate to accept the proposition that a plaintiff may plead upon information and belief not only that a contract exists but also what its terms would be and that it would confer upon him the rights of a third-party beneficiary. But even if such pleading is permissible, Doe must allege some action by NCHERM or Swinton that breached the alleged contract terms. The one action Doe identified in his opening brief is Swinton’s treatment of Doe’s proposed polygraph evidence. The portion of Swinton’s report discussing the polygraph states: Before briefly reviewing the results of the polygraph examination, it may be helpful to provide some context as to its reliability and efficacy. Polygraph examinations typically consist[] of a series of control questions (in this case, seven) to establish a baseline, with a smaller number of key questions (in this case, three) pertinent to the issue posed for comparison. The American Psychological Association encourages people to view them skeptically. Additionally, most courts do not allow their use in proceedings given their lack of reliability and efficacy. Polygraph examinations often are only able to test whether a person believes they are telling the truth, not whether they are actually telling the truth. As such, using polygraphs for probative purposes is problematic. [Doe] privately arranged for a polygraph examination and presented the results to the investigators. The examiner asked three issue-specific questions, which the examiner opines were answered by [Doe] in a manner “indicative of truthfulness”: -17- No. 18-3339, Doe v. Univ. of Dayton Q: Did [Roe] take off her own pants for sex[?] A: Yes Q: Did you [in] any way force [Roe] to have sex of any kind? A: No Q: Did [Roe] in any way object to engaging in sex act[s] with you? A: No [Doe] seems to have selected a well-respected professional to perform the polygraph exam and it seems to have been performed in accordance with professional standards. The exam is a piece of evidence that could, at the discretion of the decision-maker, serve to assist with [Doe]’s credibility, but the exam should not be viewed as proof of [Doe]’s truthfulness or of the veracity of [Doe]’s statements. (R. 23-34, Investigation Report, PageID 1442–43) Swinton’s duty under the Handbook was to “compile all of the evidence.” He presented Doe’s polygraph evidence to the Board in a manner that described both its potential usefulness and its limitations—and, in so doing, was more generous to Doe than a federal court would have been. See United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, 1216 (6th Cir. 1995) (“[U]nilaterally obtained polygraph evidence is almost never admissible under Evidence Rule 403.” (quoting Conti v. Comm’r, 39 F.3d 658, 663 (6th Cir. 1994))). Doe has not alleged that Swinton made any factual errors in his presentation of the polygraph evidence. To the extent Doe takes issue with Swinton’s conclusion that the polygraph was not conclusive, Swinton was required to view the evidence “in a light most favorable to [Roe].” He did not breach a contractual obligation to Doe by doing so. In Doe’s reply brief, he raises a new argument about the omission of facts favorable to Doe from Swinton’s report. Doe has likely forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in his opening brief and then referencing it only briefly on reply. See Tyson v. Sterling Rental, Inc., 836 F.3d 571, 580 (6th Cir. 2016). But even if the argument is properly before us, it suffers from the same infirmity as the polygraph argument. Swinton included the facts favorable to Doe—about Roe’s intoxication and flirtatiousness, the timeline, and Doe’s lack of familiarity with Roe’s apartment— in his report. Swinton was not required to draw Doe’s preferred conclusions from that evidence; -18- No. 18-3339, Doe v. Univ. of Dayton to the contrary, as already explained, he was required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Roe. We therefore find no basis to conclude that Swinton or his employer committed a breach of contract. 3. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Doe next claims that Dayton, NCHERM, and Swinton breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This claim invokes the rule, recognized in Ohio law, that “[i]n addition to a contract’s express terms, every contract imposes an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and enforcement.” Lucarell, 97 N.E.3d at 469. But as the Ohio Supreme Court held just last year, “there is no independent cause of action for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing apart from a breach of the underlying contract.” Id.; see also Ne. Ohio Coll. of Massotheraphy v. Burek, 759 N.E.2d 869, 875 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (same). Because the Defendants did not breach contract terms or otherwise act in bad faith, there is no independent basis to maintain this cause of action for breach of the implied covenant. In sum, the University, Swinton, and NCHERM adhered to the procedures laid out in the Handbook. Doe argues that those procedures are themselves flawed, but his dissatisfaction does not give rise to a claim for breach of contract. The district court properly dismissed all Doe’s contract claims.