THE OTHER OBERLIN College Case – Expelled John Doe Appeal Involving 100 Percent Conviction Rate
While everyone has been focused on Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College, it’s worth revisiting another lawsuit against Oberlin College. Once again, the alleged conduct of then Title IX Coordinator, now Dean of Students, Meredith Raimondo was part of the case. In John Doe v. Oberlin College, an expelled male student who had been found responsible for sexual assault in a campus disciplinary hearing sued, alleging a seriously flawed hearing process as well as discrimination on the basis of sex because the process allegedly was biased against men.
Appellant John Doe: “And in that same time period, from August 2015 through February 2016, Oberlin convicted 100% of the respondents it sent through its formal resolution process, the vast majority of whom, if not all, were men”
The facts are two drunk students. The dispute and the hearing turned on whether the female student was deemed “incapacitated” under Oberlin policy. According to the Complaint, the encounter started as consensual by everyone’s account, including sexual intercourse. There were text messages and other evidence that at least at the start, both parties were on board. At some point, the female asked for intercourse to stop because she was experiencing physical discomfort from the intercourse, and the male stopped. At that point the male requested that the female perform oral sex on him, and she did. The alleged violation of the campus code took place only on the issue of consent to oral sex, not the preceding intercourse and other sexual relatoins. Just prior performing oral sex, the female made a comment that she was “not sober.” That comment would become the central issue as to whether the female was “incapacitated” (and therefore unable to give true consent) under the Oberlin code and whether the male reasonably should have known that. As in so many cases, the allegation of sexual assault was not made immediately, but only after a period of time. There was no claim of use of force during the female’s initial interactions with friends or interview with an investigator. At the hearing that would change, and she alleged the use of force to push her head down during oral .
Fast forward to John Doe v. Oberlin College. The lawsuit was dismissed even though the student demonstrated a likelihood the disciplinary decision was wrong, This case show how hard it is to prevail even when the correctness of the underlying disciplinary decision is in doubt. That is why having a fair process with due process protections is so important. There is no assurance that a bad college disciplinary decision that ruins the life of an innocent accused will be reversed by the courts. The case now is on appeal to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
legalinsurrection.com– William A. Jacobson
Lawsuit: Oberlin College sexual assault hearing process rigged, 100% conviction rate
