John Doe finally got a measure of justice in his battle with the University of Notre Dame. The Catholic university settled the male student’s sex-discrimination lawsuit for expelling him. According to Judge Philip Simon, the university’s TitleIX investigation into Roe’s claims was severely lacking. Notre Dame’s TittleIX missed the fact that after Roe filed her complaint, the parties had a “near daily discussion” that included sexually suggestive texts and pledges of love from Roe. Roe also kept her text messages with Doe after they broke up and selectively released them to the investigator, showing only those that “placed John in a very bad light and without context.” The judge portrayed their constant texting as normal relationship behavior, and not threatening behavior as Notre Dame portrayed it.
thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper
Court Rulings & Settlements
Yale University has settled a lawsuit by a former student, John Doe, who says he was wrongly and unfairly expelled over a false sexual assault allegation in 2012. Doe says he and a female, who are both Native Americans, had consensual sex in January 2012 and she filed bogus sexual assault allegations in a strange plot to take control of Yale’s Native American Cultural Center. The lawsuit says Doe and the center’s former director both identify as Lakota Sioux, while the accuser and her friends identify as Navajo. The accuser and others wanted to oust the director and Doe and take control of the center to benefit Navajo students on campus. Doe accused the university of discriminating against Native American students, and said he was the “whipping boy” Yale needed to demonstrate a new zero-tolerance sexual misconduct policy.
boston.com By Dave Collins
JUDGE APPROVES ‘Title IX Retaliation’ Claims Against University that Fired Father of Accused Student
Tom Rossley accused the university he served for 23 years of “Title IX retaliation” when it fired him in 2016, following his unsuccessful pleas for his son, a disabled student accused of sexual assault. Now a federal judge has allowed the former trustee’s lawsuit against both Drake University and his former colleagues to go forward, saying Rossley’s allegations fit a precedent on “third-party retaliation” under federal discrimination law. The judge said the father’s allegations were “novel,” …but noted that not only does the ADA allow for “associational claims,” but that it prohibits retaliation against those who “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner” in an investigation implicated by the ADA.
thecollegefix.com By Jeremiah Poff
Two students at SUNY Plattsburgh were drinking and had sex three times in seven hours. So what then made this a sexual assault? The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, majority was not going to delve into the explicit, lurid details of the sexual encounter between the accuser and accused. But look to NY Gov. Cuomo’s Enough is Enough Law, (which imposed upon public colleges in NY a regime separate from Title IX) and SUNY’s Title IX coordinator, Butterfly Blaise to find answers… The appellate court’s 3-2 majority reversed and remanded for a new hearing based upon Butterfly’s errors. And while it was a win of sorts for the petitioner, it demonstrated a glaring due process failure in Cuomo’s Enough is Enough law.
blog.simplejustice.us By Scott H. Greenfield
Last summer, a federal judge stopped Pennsylvania State University from suspending a male student it found responsible for sexual assault. The university had blocked “almost all” of the questions “John Doe” submitted and it refused to require his accuser to ever provide a written statement laying out her allegations. Horrifyingly, its Title IX investigator had actually redacted Doe’s responses for the Title IX hearing panel, in the name of objectivity…Last Monday, U.S. District Judge Brann rejected the university’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Doe’s Title IX claim only survives because his allegations – that only male students have been punished for sexual misconduct, and are “invariably found guilty” regardless of evidence – are just enough for Brann to “infer that PSU’s disciplinary process is tainted by anti-male bias”
thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper
Lawyers representing a former Purdue student have appealed a judge’s November decision to dismiss the lawsuit he filed against Purdue after an internal university investigation of a sexual assault allegation against him resulted in his expulsion. The former Purdue student and Navy ROTC member sued Purdue as plaintiff John Doe, in January 2017, claiming that Purdue violated his constitutional right to due process. His lawyers argued that Purdue’s investigation of the alleged incident was flawed and assumed a position predisposed to the plaintiff’s guilt.
EXTRA EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! Judge Approves Groundbreaking Title IX Retaliation Lawsuit Against Drake
Press Release: In a first-of-its-kind Title IX retaliation case, a former 23 year member of the Board of Trustees of Drake University won the ability to move forward in his lawsuit against Drake University and its Board of Trustees for retaliating against him after he spoke out against the University’s improper conduct, including the wrongful sexual assault investigation of his disabled son.
Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger for the Southern District of Iowa last week allowed the case to move forward with the following charges against Drake University and its Board of Trustees: violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, breach of fiduciary responsibilities, breach of contract, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, the case is also proceeding under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
According to the complaint, Drake University openly discriminated against and targeted its disabled students and, together with its Board of Trustees, instituted a concerted attack on all those who dared speak out for the rights of Drake University’s students, including the plaintiff, Tom Rossley. The lawsuit describes how Mr. Rossley experienced first-hand Drake University’s wrongful treatment of disabled students when the school maliciously withheld necessary accommodations from his disabled son. As a result of his advocacy for his son and Drake University students, the Board, with the support of the University President, removed Mr. Rossley from the Board of Trustees.
“Drake University and its Board of Trustees will not succeed in silencing Tom Rossley in his advocacy for his son and other Drake students,” said Rossley’s attorney Andrew Miltenberg. “We are gratified by the judge’s decision and we will continue to pursue justice for this family, whose lives have been irreparably harmed by the unlawful, discriminatory actions of Drake University and its Board of Trustees.”
The plaintiff’s son also filed a lawsuit against Drake University in federal court in December of 2016, charging that the school violated Title IX equal protection clause, his rights to due process, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case state’s that the University wrongfully expelled the student and refused to investigate his simultaneous charge that his female accuser sexually assaulted him on the same night of the alleged incident—even considering her own admission that she initiated in sexual conduct without his consent.
Additionally, the University failed to properly accommodate the student’s ADHD, anxiety, and language-based learning disabilities during the disciplinary process, despite the fact that Drake University is home to the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement, which lists advocacy for people with disabilities as one of its primary areas of focus. According to the lawsuit, officials at Drake University took advantage of the student’s language-based disability in order to railroad him out of the University. The student’s lawsuit was upheld by the same federal judge in August and is moving forward with discovery.
Questions? Contact Jeanette Hoffman (908) 418-0859
Just before Christmas, a judge overturned the University of Southern California’s 2015 sexual-assault finding against an accused student, deeming him the victim of a process that was not “fair, thorough, reliabl[y] neutral and impartial.” One of the errors made by the private institution? Gretchen Means Title IX coordinator and Patrick Noonan the investigator repeatedly called the male student and his adviser “motherfuckers” after they forgot to hang up on a call with them. Means asked, “Who do these motherfuckers think they are?” and “Does that college motherfucker know who I am?” Both Noonan and Means referred to [Doe] as “motherfuckers.” Noonan and Means also described Roe as “a catch” and expressed, “[She is] so cute and intelligent. What was she doing with that (referencing [Doe])?”…L.A. Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White rebuked USC for having the chutzpah to claim that its system is “comprised of independent decision-makers.”
thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper
Nearly four years ago, Mr. Robinson was [falsely] accused of sex assault at the College of Charleston after a night of drinking. He was arrested, labeled a rapist and thrown out of the school…But it took a jury about 28 minutes to acquit Robinson recently, and cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing. In his lawyers’ eyes, his case illustrates how an intense nationwide focus on sexual assault and harassment, particularly involving college students and celebrities, is breeding ignorance of due process standards. “It felt like a cloud over my head was lifted,” Robinson said of his experience. “Finally, somebody listened to me and believed me.- My emotions unleashed, and I just cried,” he said.
postandcourier.com By Andrew Knapp
In New York federal court, Rolling Stone wrapped up the last remaining piece of litigation emanating from its retracted 2014 article about a rape [of proven liar Jackie Coakley] at a University of Virginia campus fraternity. The settlement is the third for Rolling Stone over the Sabrina Rubin Erdely article, titled “A Rape on Campus,” which prompted a commissioned investigation by the Columbia School of Journalism over its faults. The first settlement came after R.S. lost a trial with Nicole Eramo.(Eramo received a $3 million verdict at trial.) Rolling Stone’s second settlement came to a $1.65 million deal with the fraternity itself. And now comes the third settlement. Per the agreement, “some of the fraternity members become beneficiaries of a settlement whose terms were not provided in court.” The stipulations of the settlement included a confidentiality clause.