SETTLEMENT. University of Cincinnati Pays Falsely Accused Male $47K After Suspending Him Based On No Evidence, Just an Accusation

A landmark due process case that led to an appeals court ruling that students need to be able to cross-examine their accusers and witnesses against them has come to an end, with the University of Cincinnati (UC) and the accused student reaching a settlement. This appears to be the first time UC has ever settled with an accused student. The case arises from an incident involving John Doe and Jane Roe, that occurred on September 6, 2015. The two UC students met on the dating app Tinder and sent messages back-and-forth before meeting in person. After the two had sex, they continued to spend time together in John’s room. Jane told him she didn’t want their encounter to be a “one-night stand.” John, however, did not call her again and couldn’t contact her through Tinder anymore. A month later, Jane accused John of sexual assault. When John was interviewed about the incident, he said everything was consensual. Interview notes for him contain editorial comments from the interviewer. Such comments did not appear in any notes about Jane’s interviews. Jane didn’t attend the campus hearing regarding her claims against John.  John said in his lawsuit that if he had been able to question Jane, he would have been able to pick out inconsistencies in her statements and show that she received generous accommodations from the school — changes to homework deadlines, grades, class schedules, test schedules, and even receiving job opportunities — which created an incentive for her to claim she was a victim.  Without being able to question any of the allegations against him, John was found “responsible” by UC and suspended. He appealed and lost, so he sued the school. What makes this case so important is that it reached the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which created a precedent-setting ruling stating that cross-examination is important, especially when the case boils down to a he said/she said where credibility is at stake. The ruling has been cited multiple times since. Josh Engel, one of John’s attorneys said,  “We are glad the case has been resolved so my client can get his degree and move on with his career.”

dailywire  By Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter