JOHN DOE SUES Jane Roe Who Consented- plus University of Dayton, NCHERM, Daniel Swinton

The results of Doe’s polygraph test, in which he truthfully answered as follows: Did [Roe] take her own pants off for sex? Yes.  Did you in any way force [Roe] to have sex of any kind? No. Did [Roe] in any way object to engaging in any sex act with you? No…Athletic Trainers such as Roe were prohibited by Dayton from engaging in sexual contact with student athletes.  Roe discussed this rule with Doe and explained how she did not honor Dayton’s rule prohibiting Athletic Trainers from engaging in sexual contact with student athletes because she believed she could “hook up with whoever [she] want[ed] to.”  Roe had legitimate concerns that she might lose her job as a Dayton trainer because she had violated Dayton’s rule by engaging in [consensual] sexual intercourse with a male student athlete…Dayton and Swinton ignored overwhelming evidence of Doe’s innocence in favor of conducting a gender-biased investigation in violation of Dayton Policies to establish Dayton’s pre-determined goal of finding male students like Doe guilty of misconduct.

Doe v University of Dayton complaint

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter