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.

, , , /

LAWSUIT: SUNY Poly Revoked Her Degree 19 Months Later Because She Wouldn’t Accuse Disgraced President

A female college graduate claims her degree was rescinded after refusing to file sexual misconduct claims against the former university president, who resigned following a series of scandals. The State University of New York Polytechnic Institute’s decision came 19 months after Patrizia Burinska graduated summa cum laude, when an “anonymous complaint” caused the school’s registrar to audit her degree plan. Burinska filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month claiming violations of due process and freedom of association, as well as breach of contract claims. She was notified of her degree revocation in a 2018 meeting, where she claims that school officials pressured her to disclose information regarding an alleged relationship with Alain Kaloyeros and file a sexual harassment complaint against him….Patrizia Burinska left the January meeting with the officials “humiliated and stripped of her degree without warning, and through no fault of her own.” She also felt “targeted and set-up” by SUNY Poly, interim President Grace Wang, Haines, Tynan-Simon and unknown state defendants, in order to obtain information regarding her alleged relationship with Kaloyeros, which included “isolating and pressuring” her.  She then reached out to attorney, Susan Hoffinger, who met with the university’s associate counsel, Mark Lemire. According to Hoffinger’s recap, Lemire said that Burinska did not “qualify for any degree” and would have to complete additional coursework to receive one. She was not being “victimized because victims cooperate,” according to Lemire, and Burinska was not cooperating.

The university’s explanation for her revoked degree falls flat because it never offered her the opportunity to “explain and substantiate her program” and other qualifications that had previously been approved by faculty and advisers, Burinska’s suit says. SUNY Poly’s “continuing vulgar typifications regarding the nature” of Burinska’s alleged relationship with Kaloyeros, and “continuing pressure to file a complaint against him,” suggests its actions are motivated by bad faith. Its motives were “politically related” to Kaloyeros and unrelated to legitimate academic concerns. Under New York law, “an implied contract” is formed when a student is accepted by a  university, and it must award a degree as long as a student meets the requirements. Since Burinska completed her coursework and worked with advisors to ensure she was doing it correctly, SUNY Poly is contractually obliged to award her a bachelor of science degree.

Patrizia Burinska  argues she had the constitutional right “to form and build meaningful and appropriate academic and personal relationships with university officials,” including with Kaloyeros, who advised her. Due process requires the “timely and adequate notice” detailing the reason for revoking her degree, as well as an opportunity to “challenge the invalidation and revocation,” she argues.

thecollegefix-Ethan Berman

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
TITLE IX RIGHTS and The Innocent John Doe

, , , /

TITLE IX RIGHTS and The Innocent John Doe

Andrew Miltenberg won another big decision against Syracuse University. His client was John Doe. They’re always John Doe, and the accuser is Jane Doe, no relation. There are two things about this win that stand out. The first is that Judge David Hurd of the Northern District of New York recognized the inherent bias in “trauma-informed” interrogation. The use of the “trauma informed” approach is pervasive on campus, compelling Title IX investigators, already indoctrinated to the “believe the woman” cause, to rationalize their anti-male bias and find the accuser credible no matter what the evidence shows. In this case, evidence that Jane fabricated her accusation was, to be blunt, almost impossible to ignore, except for the trauma-informed Syracuse Title IX investigator, Bernerd Jacobson, whose super power was never letting facts get in the way of finding the male guilty… But it was Jane Doe who blew her accusation by constantly changing her story, reinventing what sex was consensual and what was not, what sex happened and what did not. There was strong evidence of  John Doe’s innocence, and Judge Hurd’s strong decision of bias and impropriety stands on that foundation.

If the “trauma informed” investigation is inherently biased, leading investigators to invariably rationalize away all flaws in a woman’s accusation, is it any less biased if the evidence of innocence or fabrication is less clear? Even when the man, a college kid left to his own devices without someone to explain to him that his grasp of consent is skewed by the indoctrination rammed down his throat by colleges fudging the law at their introductory lectures for new students, concedes his guilt, does that make the deprivation of due process harmless? If the process by which males are investigated, prosecuted and convicted on college campuses is fundamentally flawed and biased, then it’s the same for the male student who presents “strong evidence of innocence” as well as the student for whom proof in the negative is lacking. Indeed, it’s quite fortunate when someone has any evidence of innocence, no less strong evidence, and that leaves a huge potential for innocent male students to be found responsible not because they are, but for lack of proof of innocence. In this case, had Jane Doe kept her story straight, would Judge Hurd have seen the impropriety of Syracuse’s “trauma informed” investigation so clearly? It was mere kismet that Jane Doe was a lousy liar. Had she been a better liar, would the plaintiff have been a less innocent John?

blog.simplejustice.us– S. H. Greenfield

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
EXPELLED MALE SUES Columbia Claims Girl Begged Him For Sex, Then Falsely Accused Him

, , /

EXPELLED MALE SUES Columbia Claims Girl Begged Him For Sex, Then Falsely Accused Him

It’s open season on men at Columbia University thanks to the Ivy League school’s handling of sexual-harassment allegations against male students. An expelled Columbia male student says he fell victim to “anti-male, female protectionists’ gender biases permeating Columbia’s disciplinary process’’ after a female pal in 2016 accused him of rape. The female accuser begged him for sex one night in October before forcing him to fool around, says falsely accused Ben Feibleman, who filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Manhattan federal court. The female accuser told her friends in the days that followed that Feibleman sexually assaulted her and she reported the incident to faculty about a week later, but not to police.

Feibleman met the female at an event, and she struck up an “hours-long flirtation” with him. He said they went up to a water tower atop an apartment building, where they kissed and then she began to pull Feibleman’s face into her breasts. They made their way to the female student’s room for more kissing, he claimed, but that’s where Feibleman’s consent ended. It is here when she begins to beg Feibleman for sex, his suit says, but he refused — citing the fact that she was seeing another man. The refusal didn’t sit well, according to the suit, and the female allegedly berated Feibleman for half an hour. “Please because I can’t let you go without it,” she begged, according to the suit, which accuses the female of trying to perform oral sex on Feibleman, as well as biting him. “Ben simply did not want to have sexual intercourse with [her],” the suit states.

The suit says Feibleman eventually started thinking he might be accused of misconduct, so he made a 30-minute phone recording of his encounter in the woman’s room. The recording, however, was unable to convince Columbia investigators that he was innocent. The school found that his female friend was too drunk to consent to any sexual relations and deemed Feibleman — who graduated from Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism — responsible for sexually assaulting her. He was expelled and his degree is currently being withheld. Feibleman referred questions to his lawyer, Kimberly Lau, who issued a written statement stating: “Columbia University grievously mishandled this case. Columbia discriminated against Mr. Feibleman on the basis of his gender in violation of Title IX. The events of the evening in question and Columbia’s numerous missteps are clearly detailed in our lawsuit. Mr. Feibleman did not violate Columbia’s Gender Based Misconduct policies. In fact, Columbia acknowledged that she begged him for sex, he refused, and no sex occurred. Yet, Columbia continues to withhold his degree, despite the fact that he has met all the requirements for its conferral.”

yahoo– Kristine Solomon nypost-Andrew Denney

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
OLE MISS ADDS Protections For Accused Students After Judge Approves Anti-Male Bias Lawsuits

, , /

OLE MISS ADDS Protections For Accused Students After Judge Approves Anti-Male Bias Lawsuits

Months after a federal judge greenlit two lawsuits against the University of Mississippi by students it punished for sexual misconduct, the public university is switching things up. Ole Miss announced earlier this month that it’s dissolving the Office of Leadership and Advocacy, according to The Daily Mississippian. Its services, including case management teams for alleged victims of sexual misconduct, will now merge with the Violence Intervention and Prevention Office under a joint office titled “UMatter.” While the article doesn’t specify the “additional support service available to the accused,” UMatter’s website links to a resource page that offers an advisor upon request.

The university initially expelled the student who filed the second lawsuit, saying he didn’t get consent for sexual intercourse while both he and his partner were intoxicated.U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan allowed the Title IX and due process claims by “Andrew Doe” to move forward in a January ruling. He cited Title IX investigator Honey Belle Ussery’s decision to exclude exculpatory evidence from her report, including medical records that showed Andrew’s accuser “did not believe she was raped.” The ruling also keeps alive Andrew’s argument that the preponderance-of-evidence standard in and of itself violates due process, especially in a he-said, she-said case such as Andrew’s. It’s Judge Jordan’s second ruling against Ole Miss in less than a year on a motion to dismiss a Title IX lawsuit by an accused student. Last summer he approved similar claims by “John Doe,” citing Ussery’s investigative practices and Title IX training materials that suggest even “lies” by an accuser “should be considered a side effect of an assault.” The organizational shift by Ole Miss is a “rare instance of a university responding to court setbacks by seeming to(?) create somewhat fairer procedures,” Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson, who chronicles Title IX litigation, noted in a tweet last week.

thecollegefix-Ethan Berman

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JOHN DOE Sues Yale. John & Jane Met on Tinder But He Was Suspended For Condom Accident During ‘Consensual Encounter’

, , /

JOHN DOE Sues Yale. John & Jane Met on Tinder But He Was Suspended For Condom Accident During ‘Consensual Encounter’

An accused student is suing Yale University for concluding that the brief absence of a condom “during an otherwise consensual encounter” was sexual assault. “John Doe” alleges that “gender bias was a motivating factor” in the decision against him by Dean of the College Marvin Chun, which resulted in his suspension. He argues that the Ivy League school should have updated its sexual-misconduct procedures after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos* rescinded the Obama administration’s guidance on the subject in fall 2017. The lawsuit was filed April 25. The senior sought a temporary restraining order that would let him “turn in his final papers,” arguing that he “may have classes in common” with his accuser if he’s required to repeat the semester in the spring. The judge overseeing the case denied his motion…Doe’s allegations resemble those of Jack Montague, Yale’s former basketball team captain, whom the school expelled on the eve of the team’s first appearance in the NCAA tournament since 1962. Both allege the university pressured their accusers to file formal complaints and violated their Title IX rights throughout the proceedings.

Doe’s lawsuit points out that Yale did not update the UWC procedures after Secretary DeVos rescinded the Obama administration guidance on campus sexual misconduct and issued interim guidance in 2017. Accordingly, Yale failed to “correct the portions of the document that deprived the accused of fundamental due process,” Doe claims.  Doe wants the court to reverse Yale’s findings and outcomes against him as well as financial compensation. He’s seeking no less than $75,000 in damages as well as damages for harms to his physical, emotional and psychological state. Doe has suffered reputation damages, “past and future economic losses,” and “loss of educational and career opportunities.”

thecollegefix-Alexander Pease

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
STUDENTS CLEARED of Rape Sue Wofford. Males Claim College is Biased & Failed To Protect Them From False Accusation.

, , /

STUDENTS CLEARED of Rape Sue Wofford. Males Claim College is Biased & Failed To Protect Them From False Accusation.

Two former male students from Wofford College say the way the school handled an unfounded sexual assault complaint against them amounts to sexual harassment. The unnamed men sued the Upstate, South Carolina college saying that it destroyed evidence that was favorable to the men. The students identified as John Doe and Jack Roe enrolled in the private South Carolina college in 2014, but withdrew in 2016, citing repercussions from the school’s actions that failed to protect them from false accusations. While “hundreds of students at the school heard the false allegations that the Plaintiffs were rapists,” the lawsuit claimed none of the students heard they were cleared of wrongdoing or of Doe’s and Roe’s complaints.  In their suit, Doe and Roe also criticized the coordinator’s and deputy coordinator’s actions, claiming they fabricated an allegation, were biased against men and failed to investigate their complaints.

The male students say that Wofford College was “deliberately indifferent” to a number of circumstances including:

  • Plaintiffs’ complaints about being sexually harassed and called rapists
  • PG’s violation of the no-contact order
  • Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from the improper use of its Title IX policy to charge male students without any cause but fail to investigate complaints against female students

Wofford issued a no-contact order for the students, but the men say in the lawsuit the woman harassed them at a fraternity function and later assaulted one of the men at a party. The court filing said the school destroyed video evidence that would have incriminated the woman. “Instead of opening an investigation, Defendant condoned and hid the female’s misrepresentation about her conduct in relation to the Halloween party assault,” according to the lawsuit. “This destruction marked at least four times that Defendant destroyed evidence favorable to Doe or Roe or detrimental to the Defendant.”  The school’s handling of the situation caused Roe and Doe to experience “mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, anxiety, physical hurt, loss of investment, loss of time, loss of money,” according to the suit. It requested compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.

newsweek– Jenni Fink miamiherald-Charles Duncan

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT Claims UMass Dartmouth Launched ‘Witch Hunt’ Over US Army Veteran’s Disclosed Past Conviction

, /

LAWSUIT Claims UMass Dartmouth Launched ‘Witch Hunt’ Over US Army Veteran’s Disclosed Past Conviction

A new lawsuit against UMass Dartmouth claims a graduate student at the School for Marine Science and Technology was sanctioned and pushed out of his program because he had a previous felony conviction, even though he says he disclosed it when he applied. In the complaint, he identifies himself as a Rhode Island resident and a U.S. Army veteran who served as an Airborne Ranger infantry officer.

The plaintiff claims that when he applied to UMD he disclosed his felony conviction to the director of graduate studies and admissions. He says he asked for confidentiality about his past, received a promise to keep it confidential, and took three classes in September 2015 in preparation for entering the master’s program with plans to pursue a Ph.D. But when other administrators found out he had a felony conviction, he claims the school launched a “bogus misconduct allegation” and “similar witch-hunt sexual misconduct investigation and adjudication” to get him out. He alleges that he was banned from campus for four months, suspended, and forbidden from communicating with anyone associated with UMD. He claims he was not told the factual basis of the charges, and that although he was not found responsible, he was subsequently censored in his engagements with other students, had his workspace moved to a location adjacent to the dean’s office, and was switched to a non-thesis track. The anonymous plaintiff says in court documents that he has a service-connected disability for physical and mental health, and that he was using a Veterans Affairs scholarship.

southcoasttoday– Jennette Barnes

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JUDGE APPROVES Anti-Male Bias Lawsuit Against Philly University of the Arts & Defamation Claim Against Accuser

, , , /

JUDGE APPROVES Anti-Male Bias Lawsuit Against Philly University of the Arts & Defamation Claim Against Accuser

Philadelphia’s University of the Arts can’t get out of a Title IX lawsuit by a tenured professor it fired without a hearing after a contentious Title IX investigation. U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney allowed the lawsuit by Harris Fogel to proceed to discovery “on his civil rights claim against the university.” The university punished Fogel for kissing a colleague from another university at a 2016 conference in Las Vegas, and for accidentally handing his hotel key card to an “aspiring female photographer” at a different conference weeks later in Houston. “An investigation into sexual harassment must apply uniform standards regardless of the complainant’s and accused’s sex,” Judge Kearney wrote.

The professor’s defamation and invasion of privacy claims against one of his accusers is also going forward under Kearney’s ruling last month. He’ll get discovery on those as well. The American Association of University Professors’ guidelines require a university to dismiss a faculty member only after “a hearing that accords with our procedural standards.”  “As far as we know that did not occur here”  said Hans-Joerg Tiede.  While AAUP can’t comment “directly” on the situation, it “routinely” lodges protests with administrators when faculty members contact the group to report they were dismissed without a hearing, Tiede said.

Judge Kearney faulted the university right off the bat for misunderstanding Fogel’s Title IX claim. The administration argued that he was making a due process claim, “a theory not in the case,” the judge wrote.  In order to evaluate Fogel’s “erroneous outcome” theory of Title IX, a subject that Kearney’s court of appeals has not addressed, the judge looked to other appeals and district courts that have “carefully outlined” the nature of the claim. He must allege he was “innocent and wrongfully found to have committed an offense,” by alleging particular facts that cast “articulable doubt” on the university’s finding against him. Those circumstances must also suggest that “gender bias was a motivating factor,” such as through “patterns of decision-making.” Judge Kearney cited a ruling in a similar lawsuit by an accused student against the University of Pennsylvania, where a judge found that allegations of “biased training materials and other pro-complainant bias” met the pleading threshold for an erroneous-outcome claim.

thecollegefix– Connor Ellington

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, , /

JOHN DOE Files Appeal. Seeks to Reinstate TIX Sex Case Against University of Arkansas

An appeal notice filed recently seeks to reverse a federal district judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit alleging the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville wrongly sanctioned a student for sexual misconduct. “John Doe” claimed UA violated his rights in part by not allowing meaningful cross-examination of the woman reporting the assault, “Jane Roe.” Heather Zachary an attorney representing “Doe,” said that the case “is important not only to our client but also to the protection of the rights for all students in the Eighth Circuit,” referring to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In 2017, under Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the department withdrew earlier guidance issued to schools on how to investigate and settle complaints of campus sexual misconduct. The guidance had been issued under the administration of President Barack Obama. In place of the Obama-era guidance, the Education Department issued an “interim Q&A” to help advise schools on how to handle such student complaints. Then, in November, the new proposed regulations were published. “Although the [federal] district court cited to the 2011 guidance several times in the opinion, the 2017 guidance was not mentioned,” Heather Zachary said. Holmes, in his opinion and order, stated: “UA’s current procedure strikes an appropriate balance by including the accused in the process during the investigation and appeals hearing, while protecting potential victims from being traumatically cross-examined by the accused.” Holmes stated that “Doe” was “able to submit cross-examination questions to the panel to be asked of Roe, and the hearing panel members were able to ask probing questions of Roe and other witnesses to resolve factual and credibility issues in the case.”

“We have identified significant appealable issues of both fact and law,” Doe’s attorney, Heather Zachary said.

arkansasonline– by Jaime Adame

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, , /

LAWSUIT: John Sues Jane and UChicago. It’s Because of This Admitted Liar-Jane-That Parents Fight For Due Process

John Expelled: On June 5, 2018, four days before he was scheduled to graduate with honors, UChicago expelled John Doe. The purported bases for UC’s decision to expel John were the false and defamatory allegations of his ex-girlfriend, Jane Roe. UC expelled John despite overwhelming evidence that Jane fabricated her story because she was too embarrassed to admit to her friends at UC that she was engaged in a secret sexual relationship with her ex-boyfriend.

John & Jane Meet: In the Autumn Quarter 2017, Plaintiff was in his senior year at UC. Plaintiff was an exemplary student, on track to earn his B.A. degree in June 2018. As a result of his academic excellence and successful summer work history, Plaintiff obtained an offer of employment with a global supply chain consulting firm, contingent upon his successful completion of his studies at UC.  Plaintiff first met defendant Jane Roe at a mixer in October of 2017. The next week, they saw each other again at a fraternity “bar night.” That night, Plaintiff and Jane Roe went back to Plaintiff’s apartment and spent the night. Every night for the rest of that week, Jane Roe slept at Plaintiff’s apartment and they engaged in consensual sexual activity. Within that first week, Plaintiff and Jane Roe agreed to be “exclusive” and tell people they were “dating.” Within two weeks of dating, Plaintiff and Jane Roe were saying “I love you” to each other. Almost every night for the remainder of the Autumn Quarter, Jane Roe slept in Plaintiff’s bed at Plaintiff’s apartment. Most nights, and often times during the day, Plaintiff and Jane Roe engaged in consensual sexual activity.

Jane Files Complaint on April 5, 2018. Jane falsely accuses John of domestic violence and sexual misconduct.

Evidence of John’s Innocence Includes: Jane Roe’s text messages to a non-UC friend stating: 1. that she “hooked up” with John again, “but like we can’t tell anyone” because “we both said shit to our friends and they’d be pissed if they knew we went back to each other in any capacity,” 2. sex with John was “good,” 3. that “I just might use him for sex when I want it and have no emotional connection” and Jane Roe’s testimony that during this time, 4. “I was just letting him buy me food and was having sex with him, to satisfy my own desires, as I knew he would be willing” and 5. Jane’s admission that she was lying to her UC friends about her consensual sexual relationship for fear that they would be mad that she had re-kindled a relationship with her ex-boyfriend.

UChicago Emotional Torture of John: UC disregarded this and all other exculpatory evidence supporting John Doe’s vehement denials of wrongful conduct and accepted Jane Roe’s unsupported accusations for no reason other than the fact that John is male and Jane is female.  As a result of Jane Roe’s false and defamatory allegations and UC’s discriminatory conduct, John Doe’s life has been shattered. He lost the college degree and job he earned. His future economic opportunities have been crippled. His reputation has been destroyed, having been brandished a rapist. And, he suffers from extreme depression, anxiety, emotional distress and suicidal ideation from the stress and humiliation inflicted on him.

Read it: Doe v UChicago & Jane Roe

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
«< 7 8 9 10 11 >»