Category: Due Process

Three Recent Appellate Decisions Raise the Bar for Procedural Fairness at Private Universities

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 20, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Three Recent Appellate Decisions Raise the Bar for Procedural Fairness at Private Universities

WASHINGTON / June 20, 2022 – Three recent appellate decisions highlight the growing number of judicial decisions against private institutions finding a lack of fairness in Title IX proceedings. The decisions were handed down during the past month against Denver University, Cornell University, and Harvard University.

In Doe v. University of Denver, the Colorado Court of Appeals made two findings against the school (1). First, the university’s Equal Opportunity Procedures were found to be sufficiently certain to be enforced under Colorado contract law. Second, “a private educational institution owes a duty, independent of any contractual promises, to adopt fair procedures and to implement those procedures with reasonable care when it investigates and adjudicates claims of sexual misconduct by one student against another.” (2)
In Vengalattore v. Cornell University, appellate Judge Jose Cabranes issued one of the most strongly worded judicial statements ever made in the Title IX context (3). Comparing campus disciplinary committees to the infamous English Star Chambers, the Judge warned gravely, “[T]hese threats to due process and academic freedom are matters of life and death for our great universities.” (4)
In Sonoiki v. Harvard University, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week on a breach of contract claim, reversing the decision of the district court (5). Following allegations of sexual misconduct against the man, the court chided the University, “Sonoiki reasonably expected the [Administrative] Board to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedures laid out in writing as well as in accordance with his fair interpretation of the contractual terms.” (6)

SAVE’s analysis of 170 judicial decisions reveals that each of the 27 major regulatory provisions in the 2020 Title IX regulation is consistent with at least one judicial decision (7). A recent SAVE survey found that 87% of Americans believe that colleges should uphold the presumption of innocence in Title IX proceedings (8).

Persons should urge the Department of Education to assure that its upcoming Title IX regulation assures fair procedures at all institutions of higher education. Contact Secretary Miguel Cardona, telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

Campus Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

MSU Lawsuit Reveals Why New Title IX Regulation Must Seek to End Widespread Discrimination Against Men

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 9, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

MSU Lawsuit Reveals Why New Title IX Regulation Must Seek to End Widespread Discrimination Against Men

WASHINGTON / May 9, 2022 – Following a judicial ruling against the institution, Michigan State University recently agreed to a settlement payment for the unjust suspension of a wrongfully accused male student. The agreement highlights the widespread problem of sex bias by campus Title IX officials, as well as the need for the upcoming Title IX regulation to institute measures to stop discrimination against male students and faculty members.

The lawsuit against MSU arose from a sexual encounter between two undergraduate students in which the female student was the sexual aggressor. During a dormitory encounter, she took the initiative to remove the man’s clothing, perform oral sex on him, and engage in other sexual actions. The woman did not seek the man’s permission or consent to engage in the sexual activities (1).

But inexplicably, the female student decided to file a Title IX complaint, claiming to be the victim of sexual misconduct. The college provided inadequate notice to the accused man and conducted a “victim-centered,” guilt-presuming investigation. MSU also failed to conduct a live hearing and provided no opportunity for cross-examination, ignoring a Sixth Circuit Court decision against the University of Cincinnati ruling that colleges are required to allow for cross-examination (2).

As a result, the male student was suspended for a two-year period. He then filed a lawsuit against Michigan State.

Given the numerous and egregious due process violations by the school, Judge Janet Neff ruled in favor of the male student (1). Last week, Michigan State agreed to a confidential settlement (3) that likely involved a payment in the high six figures.

The MSU saga is not unique. To date, 44 judicial decisions have been issued against colleges, large and small, finding sex bias against the male student (4). These institutions include the University of Denver, University of Minnesota, University of Arizona, UCLA, and many others.

Numerous organizations and individuals have spoken out in recent weeks to emphasize the importance of due process in campus sexual assault proceedings. These include the Attorneys General from 15 states (5), the National Association of Scholars (6), 26 other leading organizations (7), and 82 leading professors and attorneys (8).

Persons are invited to contact Secretary Miguel Cardona and urge that the new Title IX regulation afford full due process protections to accused students and faculty members. Telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

https://api.knack.com/v1/applications/56f5e6b2c3ffa97c68039523/download/asset/5f5e740deb3cf00017f58485/314opinionordermtdordertofiledoc77.pdf
Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 401–02 (6th Cir. 2017)
https://api.knack.com/v1/applications/56f5e6b2c3ffa97c68039523/download/asset/626713d2a570460021af5d5f/314ordermtdstipdoc115.pdf
https://www.saveservices.org/2022/04/44-judicial-decisions/
https://media.dojmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/Title-IX-Coalition-Letter-4.5.22.pdf
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/comment-promulgating-lower-due-process-protections
https://dfipolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Title-IX-Coalition-Letter-to-OCR-04.04.2022.pdf
saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Stop-the-Weaponization-of-Title-IX-Resolution-5-2-22.pdf

Campus Due Process Legal Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

SAVE, FACE, and Attorney Group File Amicus Briefs to Protect Students’ Privacy in Lawsuits Against Universities

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 7, 2022

SAVE, FACE, and Attorney Group File Amicus Briefs to Protect Students’ Privacy in Lawsuits Against Universities

Eric Rosenberg

May 7, 2022

Last month, two non-profits and a group of attorneys spoke up for the countless and voiceless students involved in university investigations of allegations of sexual misconduct. They did so by filing amicus briefs in Doe v. MIT – a case pending in the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals. These briefs sought to protect the anonymity of students involved in litigation that exposes universities’ violations of due process and Title IX.

For example, an amicus filed by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) powerfully highlighted the magnitude of universities’ violations of Title IX. It did so in part by outlining the research of Brooklyn College Professor KC Johnson who identified at least 225 court decisions that were issued since 2011 that favor plaintiffs filing Title IX type lawsuits against their universities. SAVE also persuasively detailed how the district court in MIT ran afoul of countless court decisions allowing pseudonyms when it prohibited the plaintiff from using a pseudonym.

Likewise, attorney Joshua Engel filed an amicus on behalf of dozens of Title IX attorneys who represent both Title IX complainants and students accused of Title IX violations. Engel’s amicus outlined why pseudonyms are essential to allowing students to expose universities’ violations of Title IX.

Engel also detailed the harm students suffer when pseudonym status is denied by outlining numerous court decisions that acknowledged the educational and professional harm inflicted on students who are publicly identified as being involved in university sexual misconduct disciplinary proceedings. And, Engel’s amicus highlighted how this harm is magnified by Internet search engines, social media, and today’s political climate.

Real life evidence of this harm is presented in stark detail in the amicus filed by Families Advocating For Campus Equality (FACE). FACE is a non-profit that has interacted with nearly 2,000 accused students, professors, and families who have been adversely affected by inequitable Title IX disciplinary processes.

The tragedies of 17 of these individuals was chronicled in FACE’s amicus which detailed how public disclosure of information related to university investigations of allegations of sexual misconduct caused severe trauma and reputation damage. For instance, FACE discussed how 8 of these 17 individuals considered suicide; 3 attempted suicides; and how FACE is aware of students who committed suicides as a result of university investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct.

These types of harms will only increase if students cannot use pseudonyms in lawsuits filed to remedy the discrimination they face on college campuses. Accordingly, we hope the First Circuit reverses the district court in MIT.

Campus Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

82 Leading Professors, Attorneys, and Others Call on Dept. of Education to Suspend Plan to Issue New Title IX Regulation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date May 2, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

82 Leading Professors, Attorneys, and Others Call on Dept. of Education to Suspend Plan to Issue New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / May 2, 2022 – Today, 82 leading professors, attorneys, and others are issuing a call for the Department of Education to “immediately suspend all plans to issue a new Title IX regulation due to the Department’s inability to provide a sound explanation why the 2020 regulation requires revision.” (1) The thought leaders include professors of law and other disciplines, leading civil rights attorneys, physicians, women’s rights advocates, non-profit executives, a former university president, and other persons from across the country (2).

The 82 thought leaders are echoing the calls of two other groups that are urging the federal Department of Education to drop plans to issue a new Title IX regulation.

On April 4, 26 leading organizations sent a letter to the Department of Education noting that concludes, “We strongly urge the Department to set aside its Title IX rulemaking and to allow institutions to continue their efforts to comply with the 2020 Rule.” (3)
On April 5, the Attorneys General from 15 states issued a letter expressing concerns regarding the proposed regulation’s “detrimental effect,” and calling on the Department to “cancel its plans to engage in rulemaking on Title IX.” (4)

The three groups’ concerns revolve around the likelihood that the new regulation will give rise to a wave of civil rights lawsuits in the areas of free speech, due process, and women’s sports:

Free Speech: A federal appeals court recently ruled that the University of Central Florida’s broadly worded free speech policy violates the First Amendment. In a 38-page decision, Judge Kevin Newsom wrote the UCF policy “objectively chills speech because its operation would cause a reasonable student to fear expressing potentially unpopular beliefs.” (5)

Due Process: It is widely believed that the upcoming regulation will reduce due process protections for accused students and faculty members (6). SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulation summarizes 175 lawsuits to date in which judges have ruled in favor of the accused (7).

Women’s Sports: The new regulation would redefine “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity (8). This would allow transgenders, who are generally taller and stronger, to compete in sports events against persons who were biological females at birth. This would vitiate the purpose of Title IX, which is to assure fairness for all students regardless of sex. To date, 12 states have enacted laws that ban the participation of transgenders against persons who were biological females at birth (9).

Persons are urged to contact Secretary Miguel Cardona and request that he immediately suspend plans to issue a new Title IX regulation. Telephone (202) 401-3000; fax (202) 260-7867; email ocr@ed.gov.

Links:

Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Press Release

Twitter Controversy Highlights Precarious State of Campus Free Speech. Concerned Persons Urged to Act by Friday.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 26, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Twitter Controversy Highlights Precarious State of Campus Free Speech. Concerned Persons Urged to Act by Friday.

WASHINGTON / April 26, 2022 – Monday’s news that Elon Musk reached an agreement to purchase Twitter for $44 billion has triggered heated debate about the role of free speech in American society, including on college campuses.

While many hailed the Twitter purchase as helping to restore democratic ideals, Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at the University of California at Berkeley, darkly warned that Musk was seeking to “control one of the most important ways the public now receives news.” (1)

The dismal state of campus free speech is revealed by a recent survey of 481 colleges. The survey found that only 12% of colleges received a “green light” rating, meaning the schools had no written policies that seriously imperil free speech (2).

Three recent developments reveal growing momentum in the national effort to restore free speech on college campuses:

Ohio: Last week, it was announced that Shawnee State University had agreed to pay philosophy professor Nick Meriwether $400,000 after disciplining him for not using a transgender student’s preferred pronouns (3).
Oklahoma: Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 3543 into law, which will establish the Oklahoma Free Speech Committee to review First Amendment complaints at public universities in the state (4).
Florida: Last Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled that the University of Central Florida’s broadly worded free speech policy violates the First Amendment. In a 38-page decision, Judge Kevin Newsom wrote the UCF policy “objectively chills speech because its operation would cause a reasonable student to fear expressing potentially unpopular beliefs.” (5)

Unfortunately, a new threat to campus free speech now looms. In May, the federal Department of Education is expected to release a draft Title IX regulation that many fear will reduce due process protections for students and faculty members accused of violating campus speech codes (6).

In response, the Attorneys General from 15 states sent a strongly worded letter on April 5 to the Department of Education. The letter concludes, “We strongly urge the Department to cancel its plans to engage in rulemaking on Title IX.” (7)

SAVE invites interested persons to contact the Department of Education and urge that the new regulation:

Preserve the presumption of innocence
Not expand existing definitions of sexual harassment
Mandate live hearings with cross-examination of the parties

Contact Secretary Miguel Cardona, telephone (202) 401-3000; email ocr@ed.gov; fax (202) 260-7867.

The new Title IX regulation is expected to be issued in May. Persons are urged to contact Secretary Cardona by this coming Friday, April 29.

Links:

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Kentucky Enacts Historic Due Process Law – Joins with AZ, FL, and MD to Assure Fundamental Fairness on Campus

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 25, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Kentucky Enacts Historic Due Process Law – Joins with AZ, FL, and MD to Assure Fundamental Fairness on Campus

WASHINGTON / April 25, 2022 – Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear recently signed the Kentucky Campus Due Process Protection Act into law. HB 290 enshrines a broad range of due process protections for students attending public universities in the state (1).

Throughout its development, the Campus Due Process Protection Act enjoyed strong bipartisan support:

The bill was championed by the Kentucky Student Rights Coalition, which was composed of 64 student organizations including Kentucky College Democrats, Kentucky Federation for College Republicans, and many other groups (2).
The bill was supported by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (3).
In the House, 79% of all voting Representatives voted in favor of the bill. In the Senate, 71% of all voting Senators supported the bill (4).

The new law guarantees a broad range of due process protections, including timely notice of allegations, cross-examination, and impartial adjudications.

The law is seen as historic because for the first time, it includes a cause of action allowing students to sue. If a university is found to have violated the bill’s provisions, the student will be entitled to damages, including attorneys’ fees and court costs. Recently, a South Carolina jury awarded $5.3 million to a former Clemson University student who was falsely accused of sexual misconduct (5).

The Kentucky law also establishes rights for sexual assault complainants by requiring the university to maintain a file with investigation documents that have been submitted by both parties and make that file available to all parties involved.

Three other states have enacted broadly worded due process laws for accused college students: Arizona, Florida, and Maryland. In addition, four states have enacted due process laws with a more limited scope: Arkansas, California, North Carolina, and North Dakota (6).

SAVE commends Kentucky lawmakers for passing this long-needed legislation, and urges lawmakers in other states to enact similar laws.

Links:

Campus Due Process False Allegations Press Release Sexual Assault

South Carolina Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Wrongfully Accused Clemson U. Student on Defamation and Civil Conspiracy Claims

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 5, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

South Carolina Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Wrongfully Accused Clemson U. Student on Defamation and Civil Conspiracy Claims

WASHINGTON / April 5, 2022 – Seven appellate and 42 trial court decisions document the widespread problem of biased campus investigations in Title IX cases (1). Last week, a South Carolina jury awarded $5.3 million to a wrongfully accused Clemson University student on defamation and civil conspiracy claims. The decision is believed to represent the largest amount ever awarded to a student falsely accused of sexual misconduct.

The events revolved around a Clemson student named Erin Wingo, her boyfriend Colin Gahagan, and romantic interest Andrew Pampu (2).

Beginning in September 2015, Wingo initiated a sexual encounter with Pampu. At an October 24 birthday party, Wingo reportedly said, “if you don’t kiss me now, you won’t have sex with me tonight.”

The two later left the party. According to multiple witnesses, she walked unassisted, was able to engage in a coherent conversation, and didn’t slur her words. Arriving at a secluded spot, Wingo began to remove her clothes. In his lawsuit, Pampu noted that he repeatedly asked for Wingo’s consent, even though she was the person initiating the contact.

The next morning, Wingo sent Pampu a text message pleading with him to not tell her boyfriend Gahagan of the encounter, making no mention of any sexual misconduct.

On November 11, Wingo filed a Title IX complaint with Clemson University alleging nonconsensual sexual assault, asserting that she had no recollection of the encounter as a result of being intoxicated. Violating campus confidentiality policies, she began to tell her circle of friends that Pampu was a “rapist.”

Campus officials opened their investigation of the case, in the process making a series of important errors:

1. Ignored the testimony of multiple eye-witnesses who did not view Wingo’s consumption of alcohol as excessive. The witnesses included the dormitory Resident Assistant who saw Wingo shortly after the sexual encounter.

Disregarded Wingo’s morning-after text message to Pampu.
Failed to account for the fact that Wingo informed her friends of the sexual encounter, but made no mention of it being nonconsensual.

Based on the flawed investigative report, campus adjudicators found Pampu responsible for sexual misconduct and suspended him for one semester. Upon appeal, the sanction was increased by an additional 12 months.

Afterwards, boyfriend Gahagan sent a startling text message to accused student Pampu: “You’re innocent. I lied in that hearing. Erin wanted to have sex that night. Get your brothers away from me and never touch your life again and I’ll come through with the truth that she lied. I deleted the texts from that night prove she was f****** crazy.”

Pampu thereupon filed a federal lawsuit against Clemson University, resulting in the institution removing all mention of the Title IX disciplinary finding from his transcript, and making a financial payment to Pampu.

Pampu then filed a lawsuit in South Carolina state court, alleging defamation and civil conspiracy against Wingo, Wingo’s father, and Gahagan. During the week-long trial, five eye-witnesses testified they did not observe Wingo to be too drunk to consent on the night of the encounter. The jury also considered evidence showing how the defendants conspired to get Pampu removed from Clemson University and from his fraternity.

On March 25, 2022, the jury announced a $5.3 million award. Pampu’s attorney, Kimberly Lau (4), later commented, “The truth, quite literally, prevailed here.”

Links:

https://www.saveservices.org/2022/02/7-appellate-court-and-42-trial-court-decisions-have-documented-biased-campus-investigations/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/he-was-accused-of-sexual-assault-by-a-woman-whose-boyfriend-later-admitted-lying-he-just-won-a-5-3m-settlement
Andrew Pampu v. Erin Wingo, Dave Wingo and Colin J. Gahagan. Case No. 2017CP3900709 (Pickens County, South Carolina).
https://www.collegedisciplinelaw.com/Kimberly-Lau

Campus Due Process Legal Sexual Assault Title IX

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

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 31, 2022

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/

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

Cases Where Courts Have Reinstated Students Through Injunctive Relief

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 29, 2022

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:

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

Campus Due Process Legal Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Report Reveals Burgeoning Judicial Support for Campus Fairness and Due Process

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 18, 2022

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:

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