John Doe v. University of Cincinnati, Case No. 1:14- cv-00404-SJD
On a March 9, 2014 incident, John Doe “sought declaratory relief, damages, and an injunction prohibiting further disciplinary proceedings in a manner that violates the Constitution. Peloe moved for a temporary restraining order against the university and Cummins.”
John Doe v. University of Cincinnati, Case No. 1:15-cv-00681-SSB-JGW
On March 12, 2014, John Doe supposedly sexually assaulted two fellow students, Jane Roe I and Jane Roe II. After being fought off by Roe I after a struggle in bed, he is claimed to have crawled into bed with Roe II, who lives in a different room. The investigation evidences conflicting statements from Roe I and from Roe II about the specific circumstances of the incidences. Although there was no evidence to support a preponderance of guilt, the university expelled Doe. Doe is suing the university for due process violations and defamatory and injunctive relief.
John Doe v. University of Cincinnati, Case No. 0:16-cv-03334
On March 9, 2014, John Doe was claimed to have raped Jane Roe. The internal investigation process was supposedly biased in its selection of evidence, presumption of guilt, and discrimination of gender.
John Doe v. University of Cincinnati, Case No. 1:15-cv-00600-MRB
On February 26, 2015, John Doe and Jane Roe engaged in consensual sexual activity after finding each other on Tindr, a dating app. Roe filed a complaint with the university the following day, but changed her story of events several times to university police and Title IX investigators. In an unfair, prejudicial hearing, the university suspended Doe for a year. Doe is suing the university for five counts of due process, Title IX and civil rights violations.
John Doe v. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine & Case Western Reserve University, Case No. 1:14-cv-02044
"The judge dismissed the Title IX claim for insufficient facts to support gender bias in the expulsion of plaintiff for sexual assault. The court declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction on the state law contract claims,and dismissed those claims without prejudice – which means the plaintiff's attorney can now file in state court (Title IX for All)."
Dyshawn Pierre v. University of Dayton Case No. 3:2015-cv-00362
Dyshawn Pierre is suing the University of Dayton for what his lawyer called a "fundamentally unfair and defective internal process that deprived him of vital rights."
Pierre's lawyer, Peter R. Ginsberg also represented former Xavier player Dez Wells in a similar lawsuit. The lawsuit stems from alleged flaws in Dayton's fact-finding process after a female student accused Pierre of sexually assaulting her during an incident on April 23 2015.
John Doe v. Denison University, Case No. 10-CV-0703
Jane Doe made four certifiably false allegations against John Doe. Ample witnesses testify to the appropriate nature with which Doe handled the sexual encounters with Roe. The university also purged documents and emails pertaining to Doe’s expulsion hearing, hindering the appeal process and pointing toward a biased, unethical, and unlawful internal investigation. The investigative panel also accepted Roe’s opinions and suspicions as truth, whereas the corroborated facts and accurate recollections of Doe were completely ignored.
On August 31, 2013, John Doe and Jane Roe went to the university’s cemetery to engage in sexual activity. As evidenced by a medical examiner, there was absolutely no contact by Doe to Roe’s vagina, despite sexual assault claims that vaginal penetration occurred. Doe is suing the university and Roe for 10 counts of misconduct in the investigation, including the intentional infliction of distress, basic due process violations, and a severely biased and unethical internal proceeding.
John Doe v. Denison University, Case No. 1:14-cv-0986
On September 13, 2014, Jane Roe initiated sexual contact with John Doe throughout the dance party and the activity that followed in Doe’s dorm room that night. Roe surprised Doe by giving him oral sex and requested that they engage in vaginal sex. In the following days, Roe submitted a sexual assault claim to the university. As promised by a dean at the school, the investigation would stop if Doe withdrew from the university, which he did; however, the school continued the investigation. Doe sued the school for seven counts of defamation, breach of contract, and due process violations.
John Doe v. Denison University, Case No. 1:1-cv-1599
On the night of August 27, 2011, Jane Roe began making advances toward John Doe at a party, like grinding in the genital region of his pants and tugging at his shirt to encourage him to leave the party and go back to his dorm room together. When asked about the sexual activity the next day, Roe brushed off the question with a nonchalant remark, showing no signs of distress. As information of that night leaked, Roe incurred humiliation. She filed a sexual assault claim, and sure enough, Doe was expelled. Doe sued the university on 11 counts of defamation, libel, breach of contract, breach of implied contact, and due process rights violations.
Browning et al v. University of Findlay et al Case No. 3:2015-cv-02687
A lawsuit against the University of Findlay accuses the school of expelling students after rape allegations from a student who had bragged about sleeping with them. Justin Brown and Alphonso Baity are both former student-athletes at the University of Findlay, a small private college in Ohio. Both of them were expelled after a female student, identified only as “M.K.”, accused them of raping her in September 2014.
"Zingarelli sued the College in December 2013, alleging breach of contract in how Kenyon followed its student conduct review process in the sexual assault case brought against him by a former student (The Kenyon Collegian)."
John Doe v. Marietta College, Case No. 2:15-cv-02816-EAS-TPK
On June 27, 2014, Jane Roe claimed to have been stalked by an unsuspected male. In a circuitous investigation, the university cornered John Doe in having “stalked” Jane Roe in instances when he would acknowledge her presence and stay away from her, but not entirely leave the room in which she dwelled. The university imposed sanctions on Doe, among which he supposedly breached, and was further punished. Doe sued the university on three counts of breach of contract.
John Doe v. Miami University, Case No. 1:15-cv-00605-MRB
On September 14, 2014, Jane Doe decided to spend the night in John Doe’s room, which housed his roommate as well. Doe was drunk and lying in bed when Roe, sober, crawled into bed with him. Some consensual sexual activity ensued, and the two started the following day running errands with each other. Despite Doe’s inability to initiate sexual contact and hereby consent to sexual contact, the university opened an investigation. Despite witness statements that point toward a congenial encounter between them; despite Roe trying to dissuade the university from taking action against Doe; despite Doe already having filed for medical leave due to depression, the university imposed stern sanctions against him, including a year suspension and a year probation, granted that is allowed readmission. Doe is suing the university on eight counts of Title IX, due process, and other civil rights violations.
John Doe v. Miami University, Case No. 1:14-cv-00698-SJD
On the night of August 31, 2013, John Doe took Jane Roe back to his dorm where they began making out. Roe backed out and shamefully revealed to Doe that she had a boyfriend, proceeding to cry. The sexual activity ended and Roe rejoined with her friends. A couple days later, most likely in protection of her relationship with the boyfriend, Roe filed a sexual assault case against Doe. Doe was soon after expelled. Doe is suing the university for violating his basic due process rights, and alleges that the investigative panel was ill-equipped, untrained and partial in their proceedings.
Doe v. Ohio State University, Case No. 2:16-cv-00171
Student suing Ohio State for having been irreparably harmed by false allegations of sexual misconduct, John Doe seeks damages and injunctive relief to remedy emotional, mental, economic, and physical harm caused by Defendants. John Doe’s causes of action include: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681, et seq., and violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Ohio & United States Constitutions, 42 U.S.C. §1983
John Doe v. Ohio State University, Case No. 2:15-cv-02830-GLF-TPK
On in June, 2014, John Doe and Jane Roe met each other at a bar. After flirting for a month, they agreed to have sex on the night of July 12. Following the romantic evening, in which goodbye kisses were exchanged and romantic text messages followed, the two continued to talk nonchalantly. Nine months later, on May 1, 2015, Roe filed a complaint against Doe to the university, claiming that she had “absolutely no memory” of the night, implying that she had been sexually assaulted since she cannot remember consenting—nearly a year ago. She filed the claim to relieve herself of some academic repercussions due to her poor grades, explicitly admitting that she did not want to harm Doe’s future or life in any way. Doe was expelled from the university. Doe sued the university on five counts of defamation, Title IX, due process and civil rights violations.
Over the course of 2014 and 2015, John Doe developed romantic feelings for Jane Roe. He sent her more suggestive and “forward” texts. No sexual contact ever occurred between them. Roe felt uncomfortable in the presence of Doe, and was upset by some of the texts he frequently sent her. She reported this to the university under the pretense that Doe was trying to sleep with her. The university held a hearing concerning the allegations, and without any witness statements, witnesses, or mere evidence to support either side, found Doe guilty of sexual misconduct, suspending him for a semester and only allowing readmission after a lengthy, punitive corrections program. Doe sued the university on five counts of free speech, Title IX and other civil rights breaches.
John Doe v. Xavier University, Case No. 1:13-CV-00575
In the early morning of July 7, 2012, Jane Roe led John Doe back to her room, asked for Doe to retrieve a condom, and subsequently initiated sexual intercourse with Doe. The following day, Roe accused Doe of sexual assault. Although Roe refused to press criminal charges against Roe; although the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office advised Father Graham of the university to terminate the internal university investigation; although the rape test kit was negative; although the investigative panel prejudiced Doe in forcing him to prove his innocence and assigned him an unqualified, untrained advisor to assist him in the process, Doe was expelled from the university one month after the incident. The university also publicly humiliated and slandered Doe by publishing the expulsion letter on media outlets. Doe sued the university on eight counts of student code breaches.