‘COMPLETE Vindication’: Appeals Court Reinstates Anti-Male Bias TitleIX Suit Against Oberlin
Oberlin College likely discriminated against a male student when it found him guilty of sexual assault based on his female sexual partner allegedly saying “I am not sober,” a federal appeals panel ruled. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision that found no sex-based discrimination in the private college’s judgment against John Doe. It remanded the case back to U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver nearly a year after John and Oberlin submitted their appellate briefs.
Even the dissenting opinion agreed that John has a “colorable claim” on the first prong of the “erroneous outcome” test for Title IX violations: “casting doubt on the accuracy of his disciplinary proceeding’s outcome.” Jane Roe’s alleged comment to John that “I am not sober” was the only evidence Oberlin cited that John did not get her consent. It ignored evidence of Jane changing her story during a hearing and statements from John’s advisor, appointed by Oberlin’s Title IX team, that suggest bias against him.
“Any number of federal constitutional and statutory provisions reflect the proposition that, in this country, we determine guilt or innocence individually—rather than collectively, based on one’s identification with some demographic group,” Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote for the majority. John has “amply” argued that Oberlin judged him based on his sex “when it determined his responsibility on a sexual-assault allegation,” the judge continued.
“The decision is complete vindication for John Doe, and we’re all very grateful for it,” his lawyer Christopher Muha said.
thecollegefix.com-Lexi Lonas reason.com-Eugene Volokh
