TITLE IX Lawsuits

College kids who are Title IX falsely accused (mostly males) and are fighting back by suing their college for denying due process, breach of contract, discrimination etc. Some wins, some losses.

CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM for Accused Student In Critical Eighth Circuit Appeal

, /

CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM for Accused Student In Critical Eighth Circuit Appeal

Today featured the second of what likely will be five oral arguments in accused student appeals during the 2019-2020 session of Eighth Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Iowa, and Minnesota. (Ironically, between 2011 and 2019, the Circuit hadn’t heard any appeals from accused student Title IX cases.) Today’s appeal, involving a decision from the University of Arkansas, seems likely to yield the most important decision of the five.

Even in the world of dubious Title IX guilty findings, the Arkansas case stood out. The accuser claimed she was incapacitated and therefore couldn’t have consented to sex—but the police officer to whom she reported (she also wanted to pursue criminal charges) found her non-credible, and an Uber driver who drove her to the accused student’s apartment couldn’t corroborate her story either. Arkansas’ Title IX investigation ended with a not-guilty finding—which she appealed to a hearing panel. At that point, the accuser modified her theory of the offense to force and/or incapacitation—and Arkansas not only allowed her to do so, but refused the accused student’s request for clarifying information. (The accuser, by this point, had organized campus protests suggesting Arkansas was indifferent to rape, upping pressure on the university to reach a guilty finding.)

At a hearing in which the campus investigator didn’t appear, the police officer testified on behalf of the accused student, and no direct cross-examination occurred, the accused student was found guilty by a 2-1 vote. The student sued, seeking to remove the Scarlet Letter from his transcript. Heather Zachary argued the case (very effectively) for Doe. The overall take: all three members of the panel seemed to believe that Arkansas wrongly found Doe guilty. They didn’t telegraph their ruling, however, and anything from a 3-0 win to a 3-0 loss seems theoretically possible. But a win for Doe seems the likelier outcome, in what has the potential (if so) to be a very important ruling.

academicwonderland- KC Johnson

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
DUE PROCESS LAWSUIT Against UNew Mexico By Accused Black Student. Banned Without a Hearing.

, , /

DUE PROCESS LAWSUIT Against UNew Mexico By Accused Black Student. Banned Without a Hearing.

Joseph, a University of New Mexico student, has been kicked out of campus housing, stopped from registering for spring classes, and banned from playing on the basketball team. His crime? He has only been accused of one at this point: battery. Joseph “has not been arrested or charged, much less proven guilty in a court of law,” according to a federal lawsuit filed against the public university earlier this month. It’s not clear that UNM even has authority to investigate the allegation, the suit claims: The accuser is not a student and may not live in the state.

The taxpayer-funded university has not followed its own procedure to determine whether Joseph violated its code of conduct, the suit alleges. He was deprived a hearing where witnesses and evidence against him could be heard and challenged, as well as the opportunity to appeal. Joseph is suing the Board of Regents, the university-owned housing nonprofit Lobo Development Corporation and Dean of Students Nasha Torrez for violating his due process rights. By preventing him from being able to continue his education, the university is not following up on its side of the bargain, the complaint argues. Lobo also “failed to honor its obligation of good faith and fair dealing” by breaking his lease.

thecollegefix– Ellington

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT: PROF. FLOR Denied Due Process & Railroaded by UofNEW MEXICO. How Can Americans Be OK With This Injustice?

, , /

LAWSUIT: PROF. FLOR Denied Due Process & Railroaded by UofNEW MEXICO. How Can Americans Be OK With This Injustice?

Nick Flor, the University of New Mexico professor suspended without pay after wrongly being found responsible for sexual harassment, has filed a lawsuit against the university in New Mexico state court for violating his due process rights. From day one, UNM administrators have acted with utter disregard both for the undisputed facts of the case and for the due process to which Flor is entitled. Flor is now asking a court to remedy this injustice.

Flor’s lawsuit details how he struck up a “flirtatious” and ultimately “explicit” email relationship with a 35-year-old graduate student at UNM after the two briefly met in person in May 2018. When Flor, who is married, tried to end the email exchange after several weeks, Doe began threatening to expose their emails to Flor’s department chair and others at the university.  He said the university violated his due process rights during its investigation. Flor denied that he violated any policies, and his attorney said he wasn’t given a fair chance to defend himself.

After a sham process in which he was given no hearing and no opportunity to confront his accuser, Flor was suspended for a year without pay. Worse yet, the university is subjecting him to its faculty “outside work” policy, under which he cannot work more than 39 days at any other job while employed by the university. However, during his suspension, he can neither work at the university, nor is he paid.

As Flor’s complaint explains, “The University’s sanction, therefore, requires Plaintiff, who is the sole wage earner for his family, to either not work for an entire year and earn no income, or to quit.” …“It is just unfathomable to me that a tenured professor could have this type of suspension – it’s essentially a termination – and have no hearing at all,” said Nicholas Hart, Flor’s attorney.  The lawsuit is seeking an order preventing UNM from imposing the suspension and disclosing Flor’s employment records reflecting his policy violations. It is also seeking the violations be expunged from his employment records and other damages.

thefire.org-Harris abqjournal.com-Boetel

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
INNOCENT EX-YALE Male Acquitted Of Rape Sues University For $110M

, , /

INNOCENT EX-YALE Male Acquitted Of Rape Sues University For $110M

Yale University has been hit with a $110 million lawsuit filed on behalf of Saifullah Khan who was expelled twice. A jury acquitted Mr. Khan, of all charges.

Mr. Khan claims in his lawsuit that the Ivy League institution denied him an education and ruined his reputation after he was accused of raping a fellow student in fall 2015. Khan, a native of Afghanistan who began attending Yale on a full scholarship in 2012, was suspended from classes and then ordered to leave campus after the woman alleged to university officials that the neuroscience major had raped her in 2015.

A jury acquitted Khan.

He returned to the university in fall 2018, despite a petition signed by more than 77,000 people seeking to keep him off campus. He was suspended again in October of that year after a [false] accusation was voiced.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that the process Yale used to engage in its fact-finding was fatally flawed,” Mr. Kahn’s attorney Norman Pattis said. The lawsuit names Yale president Peter Salovey and several deans and administrators as defendants.

nypost.com– J.R. Miller dailywire-Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
EX-STUDENT Files Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Dordt University

, /

EX-STUDENT Files Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Dordt University

A former student dismissed from Dordt University for having sex with a female student has sued the school for sex discrimination, claiming the school’s action against him was based on gender stereotypes in which women are automatically viewed as victims.

Per his lawsuit, John Doe said the sex was consensual, and that the Sioux Center, Iowa, university’s policies are gender-biased by referring to assault and abuse victims exclusively as female, contradictory to requirements under Title IX, a federal law that protects people from sex discrimination at schools and universities that receive federal funds. Doe claims other students convinced the woman that the sex couldn’t have been consensual if she had been drinking. Other students and/or staff subsequently filed a Title IX complaint against Doe on the woman’s behalf. Doe said he was dismissed from Dordt weeks before earning his diploma after a “sham hearing” in which he was presumed guilty from the start and had no access to the accusations against him or legal representation.

Doe is seeking damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. He also is seeking a ruling ordering Dordt to reverse its ruling against him, expunge his disciplinary record and award him his degree.

siouxcityjournal.com– Nick Hytrek

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT: SYRACUSE U Has Ejected 40 Students. This Male Is Suing. SU’s TitleIX Investigation Is “Inadequate And Biased.”

, , /

LAWSUIT: SYRACUSE U Has Ejected 40 Students. This Male Is Suing. SU’s TitleIX Investigation Is “Inadequate And Biased.”

John Doe filed a federal lawsuit against Syracuse University and four administrators claiming the university led an “inadequate and biased” Title IX investigation of a sexual assault complaint that led to his expulsion. Doe said the investigation failed to meet the standards of the U.S. Constitution, federal and state laws and SU’s Code of Student Conduct. Chancellor Kent Syverud, Assistant Dean of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Pamela Peter, Associate Vice-President of Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer Sheila Johnson-Willis and Equal Opportunity and Title IX Investigator Bernard Jacobson are listed as defendants in the lawsuit both individually and as agents of the university.

Doe also states that the university failed to follow proper Title IX protocols. Doe’s dream of graduating from SU was “destroyed as a result of a disciplinary case based on false accusations of sexual assault.” Doe claims that SU and the administrators violated seven Title IX guidelines during the investigation, including ignoring evidence, or a lack of evidence, and gender bias.

SU suspended or expelled at least 40 students for alleged sexual misconduct over a recent four-year span. The university has attempted to make this list private. Seth Zuckerman and Priya Chaudhry, which represents Doe, said that SU’s “extreme policies treat males accused of sexual assault, regardless of the lack of evidence, as guilty until proven innocent.” They added that SU is “no longer a safe place for male students” and said their client was denied due process in SU’s investigation… Doe is seeking damages for emotional, mental and economic harm caused by Syracuse University and the administrators.

dailyorange.com-Gabe Stern

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
BOSTON COLLEGE Student-Athlete Requests Jury Trial Over Suspension

, , , /

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

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
GOOD NEWS. Judge Approves TitleIX Suit Against ASU For Saying Women Can’t Consent To Threesomes

, , /

GOOD NEWS. Judge Approves TitleIX Suit Against ASU For Saying Women Can’t Consent To Threesomes

Consenting to a threesome is evidence of incapacitation? An odd statement, but that’s Arizona State University’s rationale for kicking a male athlete out of school. In a tentative ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Dominic Lanza allowed John Doe’s suit against the public university to continue on Title IX grounds, citing the threesome claim among other plausible allegations. ASU found that “John Doe” violated its code of conduct for sexual misconduct and alcohol violations. It investigated him following a threesome with “Jane Roe” and another male student, with Jane claiming she had been too drunk to consent to sex.

The linchpin of John’s Title IX argument is that the university reached an “erroneous outcome” on his culpability, “motivated by gender bias because John was a male athlete,” Lanza wrote. According to the judge, ASU did not challenge John’s arguments that the disciplinary hearing against him was inaccurate, but rather that he failed to properly connect the allegedly faulty outcome and gender bias. “Although this issue presents a close call, the Court concludes John’s complaint contains just enough case-specific, non-conclusory allegations of gender bias” to survive the university’s motion to dismiss, Lanza wrote.

Lanza cited two rulings from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which are not binding on his court, that together suggest a university under Title IX investigation may have been induced into discriminating against males in order to preserve its federal funding.These help flesh out the less specific guidance from the 9th Circuit, which binds Lanza’s court, he said.

thecollegefix -Connor Ellington

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JOHN DOE Fires Back At UW Oshkosh Over Constitutionality of TitleIX Investigation

, , /

JOHN DOE Fires Back At UW Oshkosh Over Constitutionality of TitleIX Investigation

In an ongoing legal dispute between a John Doe and UW Oshkosh over the constitutionality of a Title IX sexual assault investigation, Doe’s lawyer, Peter Culp, has filed a response to the university’s motion to dismiss the case. Culp’s filing responded to arguments made in the university’s motion, stating that it did not violate Doe’s 14th Amendment right to due process in its Title IX investigation into a potential sexual assault.

Culp argues the investigation was biased from the beginning because Joann “Buzz” Bares wore multiple hats after filing the initial complaint, serving as an investigator and witness in the formal hearing on the complaint. Doe was further denied due process, Culp states in the response, because he was denied access to the investigator’s report, which impeded his ability to prepare a defense to the allegations of sexual assault.

The university’s motion to dismiss holds that Doe’s due process claim is invalid because his claim to a property or liberty interest, being his ability to continue higher education and damage to his reputation, is insufficient and cannot be legally classified under either category. These interests are essential to Doe claiming his 14th Amendment rights were violated as the amendment prohibits states from depriving someone of liberty or property without due process of the law.

Culp’s filing said the lawsuit does, in fact, provide a sufficient property interest, arguing that Doe’s continued education and his transcripts are enough to constitute a property interest. Culp further argues the university lowered its standard of proof during its investigation into the allegation of sexual misconduct than in investigations into other kinds of misconduct, in order to make sexual misconduct easier to prove. If Culp’s assertion is correct, UWO’s investigation would be in direct conflict with a directive from the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which states that the standard of evidence for evaluating sexual misconduct should be the same as the standard applied in other misconduct cases.

advancetitan-Staff

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JUDGE APPROVES DISABLED Veteran’s Suit Against UMass Dartmouth For Anti-Male Bias

, , /

JUDGE APPROVES DISABLED Veteran’s Suit Against UMass Dartmouth For Anti-Male Bias

Representing oneself in court is very difficult, let alone in a Title IX case where a wide array of facts, procedures and legal precedent must be carefully laid out. It’s all the more noteworthy that a disabled veteran suing his former university for anti-male bias has successfully represented himself, to the point where his lawsuit will move into discovery. A federal judge refused to dismiss several claims against the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth by John Harnois, who was a Ph.D. candidate in oceanography at the public university.

U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns approved four variations of Title IX claims against various university officials to move forward Oct. 28: selective enforcement, erroneous outcome, creation of a hostile environment  and Title IX retaliation. Other approved claims were for due process and state civil rights violations. Harnois alleges that multiple faculty members engaged in discriminatory behavior based on his gender. The university performed a frivolous Title IX investigation and spread sensitive information that has delayed his studies and caused severe emotional distress, he claims. Despite an admitted lack of evidence to find him guilty, the university issued a written “warning” that isolated him in his studies and demoted him to an apparently slower graduation track, the suit claims.

Judge Stearns took seriously the former student’s argument that the university made him a whipping boy in response to “funding pressures” from the U.S. Department of Education and a “costly gender discrimination lawsuit” by a female employee. “These allegations, collectively, if believed by a jury, are sufficient to support an inference that Harnois’s gender was a ‘motivating factor’ in the decision of UMass Dartmouth to initiate a baseless Title IX investigation,” the judge wrote.

thecollegefix-Ethan Berman

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
«< 2 3 4 5 6 >»