Late last month,  University of San Francisco, a Jesuit University, settled with John Doe.  Of special interest is the fact that USF is where Law Professor and due process ally, Lara Bazelon teaches.  Lara Bazelon created a pro-bono law clinic focusing on “Racial Justice” at the USF Law School.  

In 2018 Bazelon’s law clinic got on the national radar when she published an op-ed in The New York Times that expressed support for Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX reforms aimed at protecting due process.  “These are people of color with very limited means who face being permanently severed from their education. It is a population at risk.”

More Settlements: Claremont-Mckenna & Trine-University Settlements at Tulane &Yale

Share this:

A student suing the University after he was expelled earlier this term over Title IX violations will not be able to finish the academic year, a federal court ruled. The student, under the pseudonym John Doe, sued the University on April 15, asserting that Princeton had violated Title IX, by expelling him for alleged violations of the University’s “Intimate Partner Violence” policy. The complaint was filed in the federal district court in Trenton.

On the same day, Doe filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO sought to prevent the University from enforcing, while Doe’s lawsuit is pending, its decisions to expel him and prohibit him from attending class and sitting for exams. The University defended its actions, and the court heard oral arguments from both sides on April 21.

In an opinion published on April 21, Judge Brian Martinotti agreed with the University, ruling that Doe is unlikely to succeed in his claims against Princeton.  “Given the information available at this time, the Court finds Plaintiff has not alleged particular facts sufficient to cast doubt on the accuracy of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding,” Martinotti wrote.

As a result of the ruling, Doe’s expulsion will remain in place as he litigates his claims against the University.

dailyprincetonian-Sheinerman 

Share this:

Colgate University will face a jury trial for allegations that it ran a faulty Title IX proceeding tainted by gender bias, conflict of interest and absence of due process. Senior U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin denied the upstate New York university’s motions for summary judgment on Title IX, breach of contract and “New York Human Rights Law” claims. He scheduled the trial for Sept. 14.

Judge Scullin wrote that “evidence supports” John’s contention that Title IX investigator Valerie Brogan “entangled” herself in the concurrent criminal proceeding that the accuser pursued with the state of New York. Brogan’s involvement with the criminal proceeding “predisposed” her view of what had happened, one of John’s lawyers, Tara Davis of Nesenoff & Miltenberg, said. Davis said: “Gender bias permeated the entire investigation and adjudication process,” through the hearing and appeals. John claimed he was a victim of “selective enforcement,” meaning that he was targeted for his gender regardless of the evidence, and “erroneous outcome” because the gender motivation produced a false finding of guilt. Davis said that the charges were framed against him “in such a manner that a female respondent would never be found responsible for the same charge,” because they focused on his male anatomy. She noted that there was a similar case where the accused student was female and received a lesser punishment.

John argued that his expulsion was motivated by gender bias, given the punishment meted out to a similarly situated female student at Colgate two years ago. She was suspended for two years and allowed to return despite being found responsible for sexual “non-consensual sexual contact and sexual harassment,” while John is banned from Colgate and must disclose his expulsion to other schools. Judge Scullin agreed that this female student was a “direct comparator” to John because both findings fall under “sexual assault” in the university code.

John has “raised a genuine issue of material fact” as to whether Colgate treats accused females more favorably than males “under similar circumstances.”

thecollegefix.com-Sargent campusreform.org-San Marco

Share this: