Month: January 2022

Categories
Campus Due Process Legal Sexual Assault Title IX

Recent Title IX Lawsuits Confirm Brown University’s National Standing as Leading Kangaroo Court

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Recent Title IX Lawsuits Confirm Brown University’s National Standing as Leading Kangaroo Court

WASHINGTON / January 31, 2022 – Two Title IX lawsuits against Brown University were resolved this past week in favor of the accused students. In the first case, the University and plaintiff’s counsel mutually agreed to dismiss the litigation. In the second lawsuit, the judge issued a preliminary injunction against the University. These developments embellish upon Brown University’s reputation as one of the pre-eminent Kangaroo Courts in the nation.

Smith v. Brown University

In the first case, Brown University student “Jane Roe” alleged that “David Smith” sexually assaulted her on October 30, 2021. As a result, Smith was suspended the following month. Following multiple petitions for limited relief, he was allowed to finish the semester remotely.

On January 14, 2022, Smith’s legal team, led by former Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch, filed a lawsuit charging the university had suspended Smith “prior to conducting any investigation, based solely on unsupportable, untrue accusations of sexual misconduct.” “The only way that the Threat Assessment Team could have recommended ongoing suspension was by accepting the wholly fantastic, internally flawed and unsupported one-and-a-quarter-page Formal Complaint in its entirety and by completely rejecting the logical and factual five-page Response and six pages of counter-evidence,” Smith’s attorneys wrote.[1]

In an apparent effort to forestall negative media attention associated with the case, the University agreed to dismiss the litigation on January 24.[2]

Stiles v. Brown University

In the second case, “Jane Roe” filed a Title IX complaint on November 18, 2021 against “John Stiles,” a member of the Brown University lacrosse team. Before conducting any formal investigation, the University removed Stiles from campus and suspended him, pending the resolution of the complaint.

In his Memorandum in support of John Stiles’ Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, attorney Richard Ratcliffe argued that Brown University breached the requirements of its student conduct code and caused him irreparable harm.[3]

Based on this information, Judge Mary McElroy concluded that Brown’s “Threat Assessment Team failed to afford [Stiles] a presumption that he was not responsible for the misconduct alleged and thus that ‘the university has failed to meet [the student’s] reasonable expectations’ of the terms of the relevant contract.”

As a result, Judge McElroy granted Stiles’ motion for preliminary injunction allowing him to return to the classroom and play on the university lacrosse team “until such time as he is found responsible for the alleged Title IX violations or a renewed threat assessment is properly conducted in accordance with the plaintiff’s contractual rights.”

Pre-Eminent Kangaroo Courts

Previously, Brown University found itself on the losing end of three Title IX judicial decisions, which were handed down on December 15, 2014, February 22, 2016, and September 28, 2016.[4] With Judge Taylor’s recent decision, Brown University confirms its standing as one of the nation’s leading Kangaroo Courts.

Other leading Kangaroo Courts include:

  • Syracuse University – Six adverse rulings[5]
  • University of Southern California – Six adverse rulings[6]
  • Ohio State University – Four adverse rulings[7]
  • Pennsylvania State University — Four adverse rulings[8]

To date, over 200 judicial decisions have been issued against universities in Title IX cases. A detailed analysis of these cases is available from SAVE.[9]

Citations:

[1] https://www.golocalprov.com/news/brown-defends-lax-player-suspension-pending-sexual-assault-investigation

[2] https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2022/01/suspended-athletes-facing-sexual-assault-allegations-sue-university

[3] Stiles v. Brown University, No. 1:21-cv-00497 (D.R.I. Dec. 20, 2021), ECF No. 11-2.

[4] All three lawsuits were named Doe v. Brown. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0

[5] https://www.saveservices.org/2021/12/16-new-york-colleges-now-listed-in-the-kangaroo-court-hall-of-shame-syracuse-u-is-worst-offender/

[6] https://www.saveservices.org/2021/12/10-california-universities-now-listed-in-the-kangaroo-court-hall-of-shame-usc-is-the-worst-offender/

[7] https://www.saveservices.org/2021/12/4202/

[8] https://www.saveservices.org/2021/12/penn-state-the-worst-offender-among-pennsylvania-kangaroo-courts/

[9] https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

Categories
Campus Due Process False Allegations Law & Justice Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Cases Where Courts Have Reinstated Students Through Injunctive Relief

Listing of Cases Where Courts Have Reinstated Students Through Injunctive Relief

In his Memorandum in support of John Stiles’ Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, attorney Richard Ratcliffe of Providence, RI listed 22 previous cases where courts reinstated accused students at universities through injunctive relief. [1]

These cases are listed here for the benefit of other attorneys who represent accused students:

  1. Paradise v. Brown University, No. 1:21-cv-00057 (D.R.I. Feb. 5, 2021), ECF 8
  2. Doe v. Brown University, No. 1:16-cv-00017 (D.R.I. Aug. 23, 2016), ECF 57
  3. Doe v. Texas A&M University-Kingsville, No. 2:21-cv-00257 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2021), ECF No. 18
  4. Doe v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2020 WL 6118492, at 13 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2020)
  5. Doe v. University of Connecticut, 2020 WL 406356, at 2 (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2020)
  6. Doe v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 2019 WL 2718496, at 6 (W.D. Va. June 28, 2019)
  7. Doe v. Rhodes College, No. 2:19-cv-02336 (W.D. Tenn. June 14, 2019), ECF 33
  8. Doe v. University of Southern Mississippi, No. 2:18-cv-00153 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 26, 2018), ECF 35
  9. Doe v. University of Michigan,325 F. Supp. 3d 821, 829 (E.D. Mich. 2018)
  10. Roe v. Adams-Gaston, 2018 WL 5306768, at 14 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2018)
  11. Elmore v. Bellarmine University, 2018 WL 1542140, at 7 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 29, 2018)
  12. Doe v. University of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 399 (6th Cir. 2017)
  13. Richmond v. Youngstown State University, 2017 WL 6502833, at 1 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 2017)
  14. Noakes v. Miami University, 2017 WL 3674910, at 13 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2017)
  15. Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, 276 F. Supp. 3d 300, 314 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2017)
  16. Doe v. University of Notre Dame, 2017 WL 1836939, at 12 (N.D. Ind. May 8, 2017)
  17. Ritter v. State of Oklahoma, 2016 WL 2659620, at 3 (W.D. Okla. May 6, 2016)
  18. Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, No. 4:15-cv-02072 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2015), ECF No. 12
  19. Doe v. Middlebury College, 2015 WL 5488109, at 3 (D. Vt. Sept. 16, 2015)
  20. King v. DePauw University, 2014 WL 4197507, at 13 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 22, 2014)
  21. Doe v. George Washington University, No. 1:11-cv-00696-RLW (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2011), ECF No. 8
  22. Coulter v. East Stroudsburg University, 2010 WL 1816632, at 3 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2010)

In response, Judge Mary McElroy of the District Court of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Brown University from suspending an accused student during the pendency of his Title IX investigation. [2]

Addendum: Subsequent to the posting of this article, SAVE learned of another similar case:

  • Doe v. Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell Univ. No. 16 cv 03531, (SDNY, May 20, 2016), which involved a medical student just weeks before graduation.  The case was under seal for the hearing, but it was later unsealed.  There was no published opinion.

Citations:

[1] Stiles v. Brown University, No. 1:21-cv-00497 (D.R.I. Jan. 18, 2022), ECF No. 25 at *9-11.

[2] Peter Swope (January 28, 2022). Suspended athletes facing sexual assault allegations sue University. https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2022/01/suspended-athletes-facing-sexual-assault-allegations-sue-university

Categories
American Indians Domestic Violence Murdered and Missing Murdered or Missing

When a Problem Affects 545 Native women, It’s a “Crisis.” But if It Affects 1,681 Native Men, It’s Not.

When a Problem Affects 545 Native women, It’s a “Crisis.” But if It Affects 1,681 Native Men, It’s Not.

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

January 28, 2022

The problem of murdered and missing Indians has been recognized for years. As early as 2019, the Department of Justice National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NaMus) listed 404 missing Native Americans — 250 males and 154 females.[i]

More recently, the Centers for Disease Control released a detailed report on “Homicides of American Indians/Alaska Natives” spanning the years 2003 to 2018.  The CDC report reveals that males represent 75.5% of all Indian victims of homicide — 1,681 male victims and 545 female victims.[ii]

In 2013 Congress added a new section to the federal Violence Against Women Act titled, “Safety for Indian Women.” The record provides no explanation or justification for the exclusion of Indian men.[iii] The VAWA amendment galvanized a fevered national movement known as Murdered and Missing Indian Women, or “MMIW.”

 

Nine years later, a Google search on the words “murdered and missing indigenous women” turns up 63,300 results. These numbers include media articles, websites, legislative reports, and more.

But a Google search on “murdered and missing indigenous men” turns up a much smaller number — only 1,920 results. Why is there such a disquieting disparity?

Last year, Senators Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska published an editorial titled, “Shocking History of Violence Against Native Women is a Crisis We Can Stop.” The essay repeatedly referred to the “crisis” of murdered, missing, and trafficked Indigenous women.[iv]

But the article made no mention of murdered American Indian men, such as Levi Brian Yellow Mule of the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. Or Russell Shack who was shot by Amber Yazzie during the course of an armed robbery in Gallup, NM. Or the many hundreds of other murdered Indian men.

Apparently, when a problem affects 545 Native women, it’s a “crisis.” But if it affects 1,681 Native men, it’s not.

The American Dream is founded on the pursuit of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Given the pre-eminent importance of “life,” it’s fair to ask: Why do the lives of Native American men seem to count for so much less than the lives of Native American women?

Citations:

[i] https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_are-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-men-us-being-ignored/6176751.html

[ii]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7008a1.htm

[iii] https://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/VAWA_TitleIX.htm

[iv]https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/opinions/violence-against-native-women-children-cortez-masto-murkowski/index.html

Categories
Campus Due Process Legal Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Report Reveals Burgeoning Judicial Support for Campus Fairness and Due Process

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Report Reveals Burgeoning Judicial Support for Campus Fairness and Due Process

WASHINGTON / January 18, 2022 – The “Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation – 2022 Update,” which summarizes legal decisions favorable to accused students, is now available. An indispensable resource to judges, lawmakers, university attorneys, and Title IX coordinators, the Analysis analyzes 169 decisions issued by trial and appellate court judges as of January 1, 2022 that are consistent with the 2020 Title IX Regulation.

For each of the 27 major regulatory provisions in the Title IX regulation, the Analysis enumerates:

  • Regulatory language
  • Trial and Appellate Court decisions
  • Summary
  • Recommendation

Notable decisions issued in the last six months include:

Doe v. Texas A&M University – Kingsville: The District Court granted Doe’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because “[Doe] was denied a full and fair opportunity to correct his own statement and to test the accuracy of other statements in a matter that is highly dependent on witness credibility.”

Doe v. Embry Riddle Aeronautical University: The District Court denied the university’s motion to dismiss because “[a] reasonable jury could infer . . . that ERAU operated under biased gender stereotypes regarding the role of males and females in giving and obtaining consent for sex.”

Moe v. Grinnell College: The judge denied the college’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that “[i]n light of differential treatment between Moe and the female respondent . . . a jury could find the adjudicator’s assessment about Moe’s credibility was based on biased notions as to men’s sexual intent.”

The Analysis reveals the following seven regulatory provisions are supported by 25 or more court decisions issued over the last decade:

  1. Impartial Investigations (Section 106.45(b)(1)): 48 decisions
  2. Bias Towards Complainant or Respondent (Section 106.45(b)(1)(iii)): 45 decisions
  3. Institutional Sex Bias (Section 106.45): 43 decisions
  4. Notice (Sections 106.45(b)(2)(i)(A), 106.45(b)(2)(i)(B), and 106.45(b)(5)(v)): 39 decisions
  5. Cross Examination (Section 106.45(b)(6)(i)): 38 decisions
  6. Evidence Evaluation (Section 106.45(b)(1)(ii)): 33 decisions
  7. Access to Evidence (Sections 106.45(b)(5)(iii) and 106.45(b)(5)(vii)): 27 decisions

The 133-page “Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation – 2022 Update” is available for $100. Checks should be made payable to “SAVE” and sent to P.O. Box 1221, Rockville, MD 20849. Or send payment via PayPal with the notation, “Analysis of Judicial Decisions” (1).

More information about the Analysis is available online (2).

Citations:

  1. https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=JELDTQDKAQB6A
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/
Categories
California Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Stalking Title IX

Appellate Judge Issues Ground-Breaking Title IX Decision Against UCLA

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Appellate Judge Issues Ground-Breaking Title IX Decision Against UCLA

WASHINGTON / January 14, 2022 – In a groundbreaking decision, the 9th Circuit Court reversed and remanded a California district court’s decision to dismiss a graduate student’s Title IX claims against the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). The John Doe v. Regents of the University of California decision was issued by Judge Consuelo Callahan on January 11.[1] This was the first time in California that a federal Title IX case brought by an accused student has survived a motion to dismiss.

In 2017, Jane Roe filed a Title IX complaint against John Doe alleging 13 instances of sexual misconduct, including dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Despite the many discrepancies in Roe’s story, UCLA’s Title IX hearing committee ruled in favor of Roe, resulting in the suspension of Doe for two years.[2]

Doe brought suit against UCLA in the Central District of California, alleging the university violated Title IX during a Title IX Investigation and disciplinary proceeding. The District Court of the Central District of California granted UCLA’s motion to dismiss Doe’s Title IX claims, ruling that Doe failed to show that sex-bias was a motivating factor in initiating proceedings against him.[3]

To survive a motion to dismiss a Title IX claim, the court in Schwake v. Arizona Board of Regents,[4] clarified the pleading standard for Title IX claims. Specifically, a plaintiff only must provide “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face,[5]” and “[s]ex discrimination need not be the only plausible explanation or even the most plausible explanation for a Title IX claim to proceed[.]”[6]

Based on the Schwake standard, Judge Callahan concluded that “Doe’s allegations of external pressures [through the Dear Colleague Letter] and an internal pattern and practice of bias [among UCLA Title IX Investigators], along with allegations concerning his particular disciplinary case, give rise to a plausible inference that the University discriminated against Doe on the basis of sex.”[7]

Mark Hathaway, counsel for the plaintiff, noted that this decision was a victory for those fighting against institutional sex bias:

“Today the court acknowledged that biased assumptions against male students and the procedural irregularities in UCLA Title IX campus enforcement, all disfavoring accused male students, show an unacceptable pattern and practice of gender bias at the University of California.  The ruling allows John Doe to renew his effort to hold UCLA accountable for what was done to him and to stop UCLA from harming other students regardless of gender.”

This marks the 45th judicial decision against colleges in which judges found illegal sex discrimination against male students.[8] Many students who have successfully overturned Title IX disciplinary decisions in state court will now be able to seek damages in federal court for the sex discrimination they faced in the campus process.

Citations:

[1] Doe v. Regents of the University of California, No. 20-55831, at *6 (9th Cir. 2022). https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/11/20-55831.pdf

[2] Id. at *8.

[3] Id. at *9.

[4] 967 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020).

[5] Id. at 947.

[6] Id. at 948.

[7] Doe v. Regents of the University of California, at *23.

[8] https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/