Sharing is caring!

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Continued Wave of Judicial Decisions Reveals Absurdity of Catherine Lhamon ‘Civil Rights’ Nomination

WASHINGTON / September 13, 2021 – Judges have handed down over 200 Title IX decisions against colleges and universities in recent years (1). Ironically, the civil rights abuses that led to these lawsuits occurred as a direct result of the policies that were promoted by the federal Office for Civil Rights, which Catherine Lhamon directed from 2013 to 2016.

On May 13, 2021, the White House announced its intention to nominate Lhamon to head up the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2). During the four months following the White House announcement, the wave of judicial decisions against schools continued apace, with eight additional decisions handed down that are adverse to schools:

1. May 28: Doe v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ruled that the college failed to conduct an impartial investigation. and was biased against Doe because the college failed to investigate his counterclaims of sexual assault (3).
2. June 1: Doe v. Regents of the University of Minnesota held the district court erred in dismissing Doe’s Title IX claim because Doe plausibly stated the college was biased against him because of his sex (4).
3. June 15: Doe v. University of Denver found that the district court failed to apply the correct summary judgment standard, the accused plausibly stated that the college was biased against the accused because of his sex, and the college failed to take into account the accuser’s materially false statements (5).
4. June 23: Munoz v. Strong held that Michigan State University failed to afford the accused the due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment (6).
5. June 25: Doe v. Hobart and William Smith Colleges found that the accused student plausibly claimed the college was biased against him because of his sex, and the college failed to review relevant evidence (7).
6. August 1: Doe v. Columbia University ruled that the accused student plausibly stated the college was biased against him because of his sex, and the college failed to conduct an impartial investigation and review relevant evidence (8).
7. August 23: Moe v. Grinnell College held that the college failed to provide adequate notice, conduct an impartial investigation, and review relevant evidence (9).
8. August 28: Doe v. Lincoln-Sudbury Region et al concluded that the school failed to fulfill notice requirements and acted in an arbitrary manner in issuing a retraction letter “clarifying” the results of a sexual assault investigation (10).

These eight rulings turned not on nuanced or arcane legal precepts, but rather on egregious civil rights violations of students’ due process rights:

• In half of the cases, the judicial rulings confirmed illegal sex discrimination against the male student: Doe v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, Doe v. University of Denver, Doe v. Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Doe v. Columbia University,
• In Doe v. Lincoln-Sudbury Region et al, the due process violations were so severe that Judge Dennis Saylor removed the qualified immunity protections of school officials.
• Two rulings — Doe v. Regents of the University of Minnesota and Doe v. University of Denver — were issued by appellate judges, thereby establishing legal requirements in the Eighth and Tenth circuits.

The average settlement value for a Title IX lawsuit against a university ranges in the mid-to-high six figures (11). The average settlement value for a lawsuit against a school official is currently unknown.

During her August 3 committee hearing, Catherine Lhamon did not express regret, or even acknowledge, that the policies enforced during her previous OCR stint had created a spate of civil rights abuses. Under direct questioning, Lhamon declined to affirm her belief in a single due process protection. Indeed, Lhamon revealed her opposition to the presumption of innocence, saying that Title IX adjudicators “should be open to the possibility” that the accused party is not guilty (12).

Lhamon’s actions and statements reveal that she would be an “anti-civil rights” director of the Office for Civil Rights. SAVE calls on senators to reject the inexplicable nomination of Catherine Lhamon.

Citations:

1. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/
2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/13/president-biden-announces-his-intent-to-nominate-catherine-lhamon-for-assistant-secretary-for-civil-rights-at-the-department-of-education/
3. 6:20-cv-01220-WWB-LRH (M.D. Fla.)
4. 19-2552 (8th Cir.)
5. 19-1359 (10th Cir.)
6. 1:20-CV-984 (W.D. Mich.)
7. 6:20-cv-06338 EAW (W.D.N.Y.)
8. 1:20-cv-06770-GHW (S.D.N.Y.)
9. 4:20-cv-00058-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa)
10. 20-11564-FDS (Dist. Mass.)
11. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/universities-pay-for-costly-title-ix-settlement-agreements/
12. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/ocr-nominee-catherine-lhamon-repeatedly-side-steps-questions-about-campus-due-process/