Cornell is being sued by a male student who claims the University discriminated against him on the basis of sex while investigating him for sexual misconduct. The plaintiff, ‘James Doe’ -a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences – is suing in part to recover damages for emotional distress. The student says Cornell’s investigation caused him to attempt suicide. To demonstrate the extent of his emotional distress, Doe says he was diagnosed with severe anxiety and major depressive disorder after Cornell issued an interim suspension. His mental state worsened,and last spring, on the day Doe was notified of his second suspension, he tried to commit suicide…The heart of the suit is reverse discrimination, where Doe alleges the university gave Roe and her allies much more favorable treatment than him and his witnesses.
Title IX Lawsuits
Falsely accused are fighting back with Title IX and other lawsuits. Some wins, some losses.
A high school romance gone bad is rocking Pace University – with the bitter former lovebirds turning the school into their own personal war zone. Freshman Ari Grossman filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court saying his ex-girlfriend and current classmate Kalya Torrey started their vicious feud by lying that he raped her in order to prevent him from attending Pace – his dream college. After Grossman refused to drop out the situation escalated. Torrey filed so many complaints against Grossman that the dean had to intervene and tell them to just cool it. The final straw for Grossman came when his ex accused him of stalking her in the food hall – and he ended up getting tossed in a cell for 12 hours with his legs and hands in shackles…The NYPD has since dropped the charges after video surveillance from that day failed to prove stalking. Still, Grossman is suing the school and Torrey for having him improperly arrested via campus security.
A male senior student at Cornell University has filed a Title IX lawsuit against the university, a Cornell Title IX investigator and Interim Judicial Administrator Jody Kunk-Czaplicki. The lawsuit states the university wrongfully suspended him and intentionally inflicted a flawed Title IX investigation process that denied him the right to a hearing and due process. Additionally, the lawsuit claims the university refused to investigate the male student’s own accusations of sexual misconduct and physical assault against a female student.
ithacajournal.com By Matt Steecker
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.”
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 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.
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
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