The drunk male student received oral sex from a female student.
18 months later she accused the male student of sexual assault. The male student was expelled by a campus process where he lacked basic due process rights.
After being expelled, he retained an attorney, who discovered text messages from the accuser immediately following the alleged attack. Needless to say, the texts did not support her story.
Attorney: Todd & Weld, LLP
On Dec. 19, 2009, A male student accused John Doe of sexual assault. Five years later, John Doe is suing the university for his diploma that he was promised after a decision by an administrative committee. The only substantial facts in the case revolve around John Doe’s consistent drunken behavior, but no evidence directly implicated John Doe in said sexual assault case.
On Saturday, Nov. 1, 2014, John Doe and Jane Roe engaged in consensual oral sex. The activity ended once Roe started to feel uncomfortable, at which point Roe receded into the hall way and left Doe. In the following days, Roe submitted a complaint to both the university and city police. Roe admits, however, that she initiated the sexual contact and that Doe never forced her to commit any sexual acts. Despite the direction of the evidence, the university imposed numerous sanctions on Doe. Doe exacerbated the case when he supposedly sent Roe a Facebook friend request, which was seen as a breach of the sanctions. Thusly, Roe was banned from all housing and dining from the university, and was suspended from class during the midterm period.
On April 16, 2013, John Doe and Jane Roe, who had been intimately involved for two years, began fighting after returning from a nightclub in Barcelona as a part of their study-abroad program. The two inflicted wounds on each other, but in wrath over the recent quarrel with Doe, Roe submitted photographs of her wounds and a physical abuse claim to the study-abroad headquarters. Despite a lack of evidence that Doe was an aggressor or that he had inflicted malicious bodily harm on Doe, the university placed Doe on interim suspension. While the internal university case proceeded, Doe and Roe resumed their sexual, intimate relationship. The university caught wind of the reunion and imposed further sanctions on Doe for violating codes of his interim suspension. Doe sued the university for violating “clearly established rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, including but not limited to the right to procedural due process, by suspending Plaintiff without providing him a hearing or establishing that he constituted an “imminent threat” that would warrant such an interim restriction, by unreasonably delaying his disciplinary Hearing Board, and by subsequently expelling Plaintiff after a hearing at which he was denied his constitutional rights to notice of the allegations against him, to present evidence on his own behalf, and to contest the evidence against him.”
Attorney: Sasson, Turnbull, Ryan, & Hoose
On Sept. 13, 2003, Jane Roe brought John Doe back to her dorm, and the two engaged in consensual, sober intercourse. Before the incident, Roe sought permission from her roommate to leave their room empty so that they could have sex uninterrupted. Doe solicited Roe’s consent throughout the night, and she affirmatively responded on multiple occasions. After poorly recollecting the night with Doe, Roe’s friends encouraged her to report the incident to the university police. Doe was immediately expelled. Doe responded by suing the university for violating all of his due process rights.
Attorney: Warshaw Burstein, LLP
A Boston College graduate accused of sexual assault has filed a lawsuit alleging that the university violated federal anti-discrimination laws and its own policies governing sexual-assault allegations.
The suit said BC rushed to find the student responsible for sexual assault and deprived him of a fair hearing. The process branded the student as a sexual predator without giving him a chance to tell his side of the story, the complaint alleged.
Homosexual relationship between accuser and accused.
John Doe contends that Brandeis violated Title IX, breached its student handbook, and engaged in other tortious activity when it determined that Doe had sexually harassed and assaulted another student.
3/31/2016: Brandeis Univeristy failed on its motion to dismiss.
Judge Saylor also addresses the national context for student disciplinary proceedings and says in part..
“Like Harvard, Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’ right to a fair and impartial process. And it is not enough simply to say that such changes are appropriate because victims of sexual assault have not always achieved justice in the past. Whether someone is a victim is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning. Each case must be decided on its own merits, according to its own facts. If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision.”
Attorney: Conrad O'Brien
On Valentine’s Day, 1996, John Doe supposedly had non-consensual intercourse with Jane Roe. More than a month later, Roe submitted a complaint to the university police. The university imposed sanctions without allowing Doe a hearing, without allowing him legal counsel, without allowing him to see the evidence against him, and without a fair, thorough investigation.
The plaintiff was a freshman student who was admitted on substantial financial aid, and earned a position on a varsity sports team.
He was accused of committing rape on another freshman student three months after having engaged in consensual sex with her in his dormitory room.
The sexual misconduct disciplinary board (“SMDB”) was held at a time of intense debate, both on the campus and among students on social media, where students were criticizing the university’s handling of sexual assault.
Just hours before the hearing, Clark hosted a screening of an emotionally-charged, graphic documentary about sexual assault on campus, and the person who would serve as the board chair
participated in that program. Clark, without warning or explanation, removed plaintiff from his room.
He was formally accused and notified of the charges the next day, and found guilty of sexual assault, sentenced to dismissal from the university and branded a sex offender, eleven days later. The plaintiff was denied the benefit of the “fair practice” procedures promised him in Clark’s 2014-2015 Student Handbook1
Attorney: Leary Legal Services, LLC
Edwin Bleiler, a former student at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit (first in Massachusetts Superior Court, later removed to federal court) alleging violations of Title IX and due process relating to his expulsion on sexual misconduct grounds.
According to the complaint, in early May 2011, a female student alleged to Holy Cross that Bleiler had engaged in sexual intercourse with her while she was intoxicated and incapable of effective consent. Following conviction by the hearing board, Bleiler was expelled.
Outcome: Bleiler was acquitted, the school’s “finding” (judgment) against him was overturned, and he was reinstated.
Attorney: Nicole Colby Longton Nicole Colby Longton, Attorney at Law