BOSTON COLLEGE Student-Athlete Requests Jury Trial Over Suspension
The Boston College student-athlete whose initial suspension was overturned by a judge in August is now requesting a jury trial against the University. “John Doe,” is bringing a suit against the College in which he alleges that investigators erred in finding him responsible for engaging in a non-consensual sexual encounter with “Jane Roe.” The investigative report didn’t conclude that Doe had known or should have reasonably known that Roe was incapacitated by alcohol, but rather found him responsible because Roe did not give “clear and voluntary agreement” to sexual intercourse, a separate issue from her level of intoxication, according to court documents.
Doe’s demand for a jury trial lists five causes of action. Three of them—erroneous outcome in violation of Title IX, breach of contract, and violation of fundamental fairness—mirror the arguments Doe has previously made in support of blocking his suspension by addressing the investigatory model, the denied appeal, and the non-consensual finding. The fourth cause of action is for “estoppel,” a legal defense often used when a party asserts facts contrary to a previous claim or agreement. In describing the final cause of action, negligence, Doe’s lawyers wrote that the University failed to properly train and supervise Assistant Dean of Students Kristen O’Driscoll and external investigator Jennifer Davis. The complaint pointed to the nature of the finding—that Roe did not consent to sex, rather than was unable to consent—as evidence that the investigators did not properly fulfill their responsibilities.
The complaint says that the investigators overlooked “unambiguous” evidence that Roe consented to sexual intercourse by giving verbal instructions during the encounter, assisting in the removal of her clothes, and instructing Doe to get a condom, all of which Doe testified to. Doe’s lawyers pointed to “inconsistencies” in Roe’s testimony in each of her interviews with the investigators. These inconsistencies included Roe’s initial statement that she did not consent to any part of her encounter with Doe, which conflicted with her later testimony that she agreed to make out with Doe and helped him remove her clothes, according to the complaint. More significantly, it criticizes the investigators for concluding that Roe was highly intoxicated to the point of being unable to make informed, rational decisions while also crediting her recollection when it diverged from Doe’s.
Doe is suing BC for damages related to physical, emotional, and psychological damages; damages to his reputation; past and future economic losses; loss of educational opportunities; and the loss of future career prospects. The complaint cited Doe’s permanent disciplinary record, a delay in his anticipated graduation date, and the disclosure to potential graduate schools and employers as damaging.
bcheights-Jack Miller
