The lawsuits like every legal proceeding will hinge on the details and what procedures were followed and not followed, what was said and not said, etc. Ive linked to a fairly comprehensive database of cases and listed the most recent.
Over 130 lawsuits by students accused of, or expelled for, sexual assault have been filed against colleges and universities. These lawsuits have alleged breach of contract, sex discrimination, due process infringements, and other violations. In addition, numerous persons claiming to be victims of sexual assault have prevailed in complaints and lawsuits alleging Title IX violations. A listing of recent cases and documents can be seen HERE. The totality of lawsuits filed by men and women alleging inadequate and biased college proceedings argues that campus-based adjudication systems are inherently flawed.
LISTING OF COURT DECISIONS
The cases listed below meet these three criteria:
College student was accused of sexual misconduct
Student filed a lawsuit against the university regarding its involvement in the case
Court of law issued a ruling
In approximately seven out of 10 cases, the court ruled at least partly in favor of the accused student, or allowed the case to proceed because the pleadings were sufficient to state a cause of action. In many cases, the ruling was followed by a confidential out-of-court settlement. More documentation about the lawsuits can be found in the Database of Due Process Lawsuits Against Colleges and Universities. The cases are arranged in reverse chronological order:
2016:
Brandeis University, Waltham, MA: Following a 21-month long same-sex relationship, John Doe was accused of “numerous inappropriate nonconsensual sexual interactions,” leading to a Disciplinary Warning with no suspension, and a notion in his educational record of sexual misconduct. Doe filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and other violations. In a wide-ranging opinion, the Massachusetts District Court found for the student, ruling that “Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process.”
Brown University, Providence, RI: One day after a female student filed an allegation of sexual assault, the university ordered the male student’s “immediate removal from campus for an indefinite period of time.” The Rhode Island District Court upheld the accused student’s complaint with regard to erroneous outcome under Title IX, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory judgment.
Brown University, Providence, RI: A female student alleged that a non-consensual sexual encounter occurred during the 2014-2015 academic year. Relying on the the affirmative consent policy adopted by the school for the subsequent 2015-2016 academic year, the hearing panel ruled the respondent to be responsible. The Rhode Island District Court ruled against the University and ordered a re-adjudication of the case, noting “When combined with other errors set forth herein, it is clear that Doe’s contract rights were violated.”
University of Cincinnati: A female student accused two male students of sexual assault. A three-year suspension was imposed on Doe I, while Doe II faced disciplinary probation. The students filed a lawsuit alleging lack of due process and sex discrimination. The Southern Ohio District Court upheld the university’s motion to dismiss, writing “Even accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they received constitutional due process protections.”
Columbia University, New York, NY: Paul Nungesser was accused of rape by fellow student Emma Sulkowicz. The man was found innocent of wrongdoing by the university, and the local DA declined to pursue the case. Nungesser then sued the university for Title IX violations, alleging it failed to protect him from a hostile environment created by Sulkowicz’ highly publicized mattress protest. The Southern District of New York ruled against Nungesser, opining, “[t]he mere fact that sexual harassment proceedings have as their subject sexual behavior and speech does not itself implicate sex discrimination.”
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Following an allegation of non-consensual sexual contact, Vito Prasad was suspended for a two-year period. Prasad filed a lawsuit against the university claiming breach of contract, lack of due process, gender bias, and other violations. Highlighting the shortcomings of the university’s single-investigator model, the New York District Court ruled the plaintiff’s erroneous outcome claim could proceed.
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: A male student involved in a consensual BDSM relationship was found responsible for violating two student conduct regulations, including one pertaining to sexual misconduct, and was expelled. The student filed a lawsuit, claiming violation of his due process and free speech rights. In a far-ranging analysis, the Virginia District Court ruled against the university’s motion to dismiss, noting that the expulsion of a student for no f a student for non-academic reasons represents the deprivation of a “protected liberty interest.” The Court explained that “controversial and sometimes offensive ideas and viewpoints are central to the educational mission of universities. It follows that university students cannot thrive without a certain thickness of skin that allows them to engage with expressions that might cause ‘distress’ or ‘discomfort.'”
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta: Accused of sexual misconduct, a male student was expelled from the university. The student sued, alleging due process violations and sex discrimination. In 2015 the Northern Georgia District Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, although the judge indicated he was “greatly troubled” that the university’s adjudication procedures were “very far from an ideal representation of due process.” In 2016 the Northern Georgia District Court denied the school’s motion to dismiss the student’s due process and Title IX claims.
Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis: Without any hearing, Jeremiah Marshall was suspended on accusations of sexual assault. Nearly two months later a Panel conducted a hearing and ruled to expel Marshall from the university. Marshall filed a lawsuit alleging multiple violations of due process, free speech, and sex discrimination. The Southern Indiana District Court allowed Marshall’s Title IX claim to go forward.
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA: John Doe, accused of sexual misconduct, was found not responsible by the hearing board. The complainant appealed and the decision of the hearing board was set aside, resulting in a five and a half year suspension. The Western Virginia District Court ruled that the university “denied Doe a ‘meaningful hearing,'” thus violating his property interests.
University of Kentucky, Lexington: Found responsible of sexual misconduct by a university hearing panel, John Doe took the case to the Appeals Board, which overturned the decision and ordered a re-hearing. The hearing panel reached the same finding, leading to a second appeal, and a second overturning. Seeking to avoid a third hearing, John Doe filed a lawsuit. The Eastern Kentucky District Court ruled the court did not have legal jurisdiction over the case because the university’s sexual misconduct hearing was an official “state proceeding … akin to a criminal prosecution.”
La Sierra University, Riverside, CA: John Doe, an international student, claimed that the university sought to expel him and to revoke his student visa without conducting any hearing, identifying the witnesses, or disclosing any evidence to him. The Superior Court of the State of California, Riverside granted the Doe’s motion for a stay of the university’s administrative action, allowing him to enroll in classes for the 2016 Fall term.
Oklahoma City University: The university decided to expel student Samuel Ritter for violating its sexual misconduct policy. Ritter filed a lawsuit alleging violation of his due process rights and damages for breach of contract. In granting the motion to prevent the university from expelling Ritter until the case can be further litigated, the District Court of Western Oklahoma wrote, “The court recognizes that colleges must take seriously allegations of sexual assault…Nonetheless, universities must ensure that the rights of both the accused and the accuser are protected.”
Pennsylvania State University, State College: A student was suspended on allegations of non-consensual sexual contact. In seeking an emergency restraining order, the student, a Syrian national, explained that he feared losing his student visa and being forced to return to war-torn Syria. Noting the “inadequacy” of the university’s procedures, the Middle District of Pennsylvania District Court granted the student’s request. Subsequently the District Court dismissed the case, noting that “the University will institute material changes to its disciplinary proceedings as applied to its entire student body and will subsequently expunge the results of the specific disciplinary proceedings at issue in this case.”
Savannah State University, Georgia: Accused of sexual harassment, Joseph Roberts was indefinitely suspended without prior notice or hearing. Roberts filed a lawsuit alleging seven causes of action. Noting that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’,” the Northern Georgia District Court granted the university’s motion to dismiss.
University of Southern California, Los Angeles: Following a group sexual encounter, John Doe was found responsible of sexual misconduct because he “encouraged or permitted” other students to slap a female student on the buttocks. Claiming he was not afforded a fair hearing, Doe petitioned the Superior Court, which rejected his claim. Doe then appealed to the California Second Appellate District Court, which ruled in the Doe’s favor, noting, “it is not too heavy a burden to require that students facing disciplinary action be informed of the factual basis for the charges against them.” The university then filed a petition for review, which was denied by the California Supreme Court. Justice Audrey Collins explained, the “SJACS [office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards] relied on information never revealed to John, and the Appeals Panel suspended John on a different theory than SJACS. John was not provided any information about the factual basis of the charges against him, he was not allowed to access any evidence used to support those accusations unless he actively sought it through a written request, and he was not provided with any opportunity to appear directly before the decision-making panel to rebut the evidence presented against him.”
University of Southern California, Los Angeles: John Doe and Jane Doe were engaged in a sporadic romantic relationship. In December 2015 she sought to re-establish the relationship, and also threatened to report him to the university for sexual assault. John declined her request. During the ensuring months she continued to harass John. In March 2016 John asked the USC Title IX Coordinator to issue a no-contact directive against Jane for harassment, threats, and stalking. In an apparent retaliatory response, Jane filed a sexual assault complaint against John, resulting in a decision to expel him. The Los Angeles Superior Court issued a stay order, allowing John to continue to attend classes while the court considers his appeal.
2015:
http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/court-decisions/
