A former Columbia University student, Paul Nungesser, who is suing his alma mater for failing to stop his accuser from publicly harassing him has lost in court a second time. “From the outset of this case, Judge Woods has been decidedly closed-minded to Paul Nungesser’s claims,” Miltenberg said. “Based upon that, we are not surprised with Judge Woods’ decision dismissing the second amended complaint. Still, we are exceptionally disappointed; Paul is a real victim, and the 100 page complaint is very detailed and clearly sets forth substantial claims including violations of Title IX, basic principles of equity and beyond.” Paul’s parents released their own statement regarding the decision: “We are disappointed but we are looking forward to bringing the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If Judge Woods’ decision stands, an acquittal at a university hearing is utterly pointless, since it would allow university sponsored defamation and public harassment of innocent students.”
Title IX Lawsuits
Falsely accused are fighting back with Title IX and other lawsuits. Some wins, some losses.
Important Lawsuit Seeks to Hold College Accountable for its Unfair and Harmful Disciplinary Action Filed on April 4, 2017
When a college student is accused of misconduct, he or she is entitled to a fair investigation, and if a disciplinary hearing is warranted, a fair proceeding. When such a student is denied a fair review and hearing of serious misconduct allegations, the consequences may be life altering and devastating.
Far too often, college administrators who receive complaints of misconduct pre-judge guilt based on stereotypes that arise merely from the type of allegations that are made, regardless of the facts. Charged with an obligation to swiftly and harshly punish misconduct, they often decide the “case” without a real investigation, evidence or a hearing of any kind. And when they do so, they do so quickly, arbitrarily punishing the accused students on an interim and permanent basis. The range of punishments routinely doled out in such circumstances often includes expulsions or suspensions, and an obligation on the part of the accused student to report the fact that he or she suffered severe punishment for a disciplinary violation. When applying to graduate school or for employment a report of these disciplinary sanctions on the accused student’s record more often than not, destroys their candidacy for admission or the hiring they seek.
In many unfair disciplinary cases, the college officials in question circumvent established, mandatory disciplinary policies and procedures that are published by the college for the purpose of ensuring fairness. The only way this type of unfairness and the devastation it causes can be corrected, is through legal action. Legal action that holds accountable those colleges who punish students unfairly and unlawfully will serve as a reminder to all colleges that they must protect the rights of complaining students, and accused students, and ensure that fairness always prevails.
On April 4, 2017, Chaiken & Chaiken, P.C. , joined by Friedman, Suder & Cooke, P.C. filed a lawsuit against the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), alleging that school officials unfairly mishandled a student’s misconduct complaint against another student, and ignored the rights of the accused student to a fair review and response to the allegations against him. The lawsuit charges that despite knowing the matter involved Title IX issues, the two UTA officials handling the complaint circumvented UTA’s mandatory Title IX investigation and hearing procedures. These mandatory procedures require a fair and impartial investigation by a Title IX investigator, and a hearing before a neutral hearing officer.
The lawsuit further charges that upon circumventing these mandatory procedures, the same two UTA officials severely punished the accused student on an immediate, interim basis, without conducting a proper investigation. Ultimately, a few days after the complaint was made, and again without a proper investigation, they chose to punish him on a permanent basis. Inexplicably, they did so despite acknowledging in emails to each other that there was no evidence to support the allegations against him, or the punishment they meted out, nevertheless. Tragically, the embarrassment, stress, mental anguish and damage to reputation suffered by the accused young man, and the fear that this unfair disciplinary sanction would prevent him from attending graduate school or finding a job, caused him to take his own life.
This important case serves to remind us that fairness in disciplinary proceedings on college campuses is not a given, even when the colleges’ policies and procedures say otherwise. Those who are accused of misconduct on campus find themselves in the midst of a true legal crisis with devastating potential consequences, if they do not navigate the intricacies of campus disciplinary procedures in a manner that invokes their rights to fairness. Only when students and their families understand this reality, and the need to take specific action to invoke the rights that are designed to protect fairness in campus misconduct cases, can tragic consequences be avoided.
This case report and complaint was sent to Alice from Attorney Kenneth Chaiken.
Thank you for bringing this terrible injustice of an innocent life now gone to my attention. For inquiries about this case contact: Kenneth Chaiken 214/722-9494
The facts revolve around a drunken hookup between two students and the woman’s subsequent efforts at covering up her willing participation by blaming the male student and accusing him of assault. Amherst’s administration was equally complicit, pronouncing the man guilty on flimsy and incomplete evidence, then refusing to reconsider once evidence that the woman had fabricated her story came to light. And the dark force driving the school to make an example of the student is Obama’s OCR… Although several elements of Doe’s complaint did not survive Amherst’s motion to dismiss, that’s irrelevant. What matters is that his central claims did and now the school can either settle or face trial.
www.jamesgmartin.center By George Leef
A boy and a girl at Univ. of Michigan were drinking. They danced and had sex. He says the sex was consensual. She had morning after regret and Title IX’d him. The male was expelled. Attorney Deborah Gordon, who is representing the male student, posed a question a jury will ultimately have to answer: If the female student had been voluntarily drinking, are there legal grounds for a suit against the male student? And if there is grounds for a suit, how much is the female student responsible for what happened.
www.abc10.com By David Jesse
A Yale male became a Title IX ‘person of interest’ after writing a class essay in which he condemned rape. According to his complaint a university panel found in 2014 that ‘John Doe’ had engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent. Doe alleges that the woman expressly consented and on that evening she harassed him. He adds that Yale’s disciplinary procedures were stacked against him and administered by biased officials who presumed his guilt. Doe insists that Title IX must protect men as well as women. In punishing him for sexual assault on the basis of allegations that were either unfounded or refuted by facts to which both sides of the dispute agreed, the lawsuit argues, Yale discriminated against him on the basis of his sex in violation of Title IX.
More than 150 lawsuits brought by students accused of sexual misconduct who allege they were denied basic fairness in campus proceedings have been filed since 2011. Two recent rulings illustrate how malleable and susceptible to varying interpretations the law in this area is, leading to a mixed bag of results for plaintiffs. Some judges are deeply reluctant to interfere in universities’ internal disciplinary systems and will defer to universities even when the circumstances would likely strike most people as outrageous. Other judges are more willing to allow accused students’ lawsuits to move forward, at least beyond the initial pleadings and into the discovery phase. Today, we will look at one of each of those cases.
www.thefire.org Samantha Harris
A former University of Maryland student opposed a motion from campus administrators to dismiss his complaint in a federal lawsuit seeking $5 million. The ex-student and plaintiff, John Doe claimed in his Sept. 30 complaint that he was wrongfully expelled. Doe alleged he was not given due process or advised of his rights during this university’s sexual misconduct investigation and was not given proper notice of investigation procedures. University officials also “filtered through the police report” and didn’t let Doe tell his side of the story while ignoring certain details of the incident. Doe seeks reinstatement to this university and for all files related to the investigation to be removed from his record. At the time of his expulsion, he was three credits shy of graduation.
dbknews.com By Jessica Campisi
On Friday Manhattan federal judge Gregory Woods said Nungesser could not prove he was harassed based on his gender and tossed the lawsuit “with prejudice” To win, Nungesser would have had to prove that Columbia knew he was being harassed based on his gender. But Nungesser himself argued in his lawsuit that “Sulkowicz’s conduct was motivated by her anger at his rejection of her as well as her anger at his having been found ‘not responsible’” for the rape. Nungesser’s lawyer said his client intends to keep fighting. “We think we have a good appeal. We’re going to have to go to to the Second Circuit (Court of Appeals) and get it done right.”
nypost.com By Kaja Whitehouse
Fifty years ago a white woman accused 14 year old black Emmett Till of sexual assault. It turns out her accusation was false, Throughout America, college campuses are reliving the Jim Crow South where black men stereotyped as rapists were lynched by the Ku Klux Klan. Today at colleges when a white female accuses a black male of assaulting her, Title IX teaches (religiously) that she is to be believed. This brazen and radical feminist stance of ‘believe’ is leading to hundreds of innocent males being Title9 falsely accused, expelled and denied a college education for life. Many of the accused males are black without resources to defend their innocence. Below are true stories of alleged campus sexual assaults involving white girls who Title9 accuse blacks. ALL BLACKS WERE Denied a FAIR HEARING, Denied DUE PROCESS, and denied the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
Sacred Heart University: White Female and 2 Black Males have consenting sex, She cries rape. 2 BLACKS EXPELLED White Female is charged w making a false allegation. 2 Black Males never get their college education or scholarship back.
Florida State University: White Female and Black Male athlete have consenting sex. Female accuses. Black Male is found innocent three times. White Female shifts story, contradicts evidence. White Female seeks celebrity and $$ while BLACK MALE IS SLANDERED.
False accusations exist. Due Process is essential for justice. Alice
More than a dozen new lawsuits have been filed against universities by students who allege they were discriminated against and denied due process in campus sexual misconduct proceedings, and even more complaints are in the works. There have also been a number of new rulings in the many ongoing accused-student lawsuits. Today, I’ll talk about two of this month’s decisions in which federal judges denied accused students’ requests for preliminary injunctions in their cases.
www.thefire.org By Samantha Harris