Category: Sexual Assault

Family Courts Increasingly Are Holding False Accusers Accountable for Their Actions

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 1, 2022

Family Courts Increasingly Are Holding False Accusers Accountable for Their Actions

SAVE

April 1, 2022

Over the years, people have asked how to seek recompense for false allegations and other abusive litigation tactics. Family law cases have a tendency to bring out bad behavior in people, and false allegations have an unfortunate tendency to arise with greater frequency in such cases.

Following are examples of three family law cases:

In Leisinger v. Jacobson, 2002 SD 108 (S.D. 2002), a South Dakota man sued his ex-wife for making a series of false allegations during the pendency of their divorce. Among other things, she “orchestrated [a] protection order, and violations of it, to obtain leverage against him in the divorce.” The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a malicious prosecution verdict in which a jury ordered the ex-wife to pay $13,754 in damages to her ex-husband. The jury also ordered her to pay $120,000 in punitive damages, which the Supreme Court reduced to $25,000. https://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opiniondetail.aspx?ID=1014
In a 2010 case titled Bloch v. Bloch, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a trial order that dismissed a malicious prosecution case that was based on false allegations made during a divorce. During the divorce case, the wife sought full custody of the couple’s minor child. Wife made false reports of physical abuse by him and reported or caused to be reported a number of false allegations of sexual abuse by the husband against the couple’s child. These allegations resulted in two separate child protective service (CPS) investigations, a psychological review of the parties and the child, and a number of police investigations. Husband was also forced to undergo a psychological evaluation, a polygraph examination, and was subject to at least one arrest. During the divorce proceedings, the trial court found the allegations were without merit, a finding supported by the psychologist who examined the parties and the child. Based on these facts, the Court of Appeals allowed the husband’s malicious prosecution case against his ex-wife to proceed. https://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2010/090210/46723.pdf
In Norberg v. Norberg, 2017 ND 14 (N.D. 2017), the North Dakota Supreme Court allowed a case to proceed against a woman who falsely accused her husband of sexual assault in an effort to win custody of their children. The false allegations resulted in her husband being tried and acquitted of rape. https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2017ND14

The North Dakota Supreme Court earlier affirmed a trial decision that awarded sole custody of the couple’s children to the falsely accused ex-husband. The trial court found the wife’s report of sexual abuse was untrue and nothing more than her attempt to get custody of the parties’ children. The court also found that she lied to the children about her allegations, which alienated the children from their father and may have damaged his relationship with them. The court found her lies were strong evidence of her moral unfitness because the children had to deal with news accounts of their father’s criminal trial and the intrusions of supervised parenting time, and the lies put their father at risk of going to prison: http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/11/dr-jon-norbergs-nightmare-rape.html

Malicious Prosecution

The family law cases discussed above all involved false allegations of rape and/or child abuse, which resulted in criminal investigations. It’s hard to image a more malicious act than to falsely accuse someone of rape or child abuse.

That said, malicious prosecution claims should only be brought in egregious situations – those that involve malice. Malicious prosecution claims are generally disfavored in the law because of their potential chilling effect on people’s willingness to bring legitimate claims. Trial lawyers David Parker and William Mills write:

Malicious prosecution claims have long been recognized as having a chilling effect on an ordinary citizen’s willingness to bring a dispute to court, and as a result the tort is often characterized as a “disfavored cause of action.”

It is not simply a matter of a chilling effect on the public – it affects lawyers as well. “[T]here is a basic and important policy that public access to the courts should be unfettered by threats of retaliatory litigation. Access to the courts would be illusory if plaintiffs were denied counsel of their choice, because attorneys feared being held liable as insurers of the quality of their clients’ cases. Few attorneys would be willing to prosecute close and difficult matters, and virtually none would dare challenge the propriety of established legal doctrines.” http://parkermillsllp.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MaliciousProsecutionHandbook2014.pdf (citations omitted)

Takeaways

What are the takeaways from these cases for both lawyers and parties?

For lawyers, the takeaway is “do your diligence.” Don’t merely repeat what your client tells you. This is true at the start of the case as well as at all times during the pendency of the case. If you learn during the pendency of the case that your allegations are false or unfounded, don’t repeat them.

Above all, don’t make unfounded allegations in an attempt to gain leverage. If you allege child abuse or domestic violence in an effort to bolster your case and lose, you’ll certainly lose credibility with the court. You might also find yourself a defendant in a malicious prosecution case.

For parties, don’t make unfounded allegations in an attempt to gain leverage. For many years, this was considered a low-risk strategy – the so-called “silver bullet.” However, things have changed. These unsavory tactics not only are increasingly unlikely to carry the day, they may backfire and cause you to lose the case. Even worse, you might get sued by your former partner after the case is over.

Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Murdered and Missing Sexual Assault Violence Against Women Act

PBS’ ‘Bring Her Home’ Betrays the Truth, Ignores Missing and Murdered Indian Men

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 17, 2022

PBS’ ‘Bring Her Home’ Betrays the Truth, Ignores Missing and Murdered Indian Men

Rebecca Stewart

March 17, 2022

Imagine Danokoo Hoaglen were your 16-year-old boy who went missing in Montana almost a year ago and you’ve heard nothing since. He’s just gone. Finding him, or any morsel of information on what happened, would be your most important mission.

Hoaglen is one of more than a thousand missing Native Americans, like Jonathan Kent of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, who disappeared in December at age 15; or Willis Derendoff, age 34, missing without a trace since November 2020. It’s a relative’s worst nightmare, not knowing what happened or where a loved one is.

Whether that person is a son or a daughter makes no difference in the level of strife and determination for finding help and bringing that person home. Whether that’s a son or a daughter should make no difference in the level of help that’s offered from the community.

FBI statistics on the plight of Murdered and Missing Indigenous People (MMIP) are detailed in a report from the National Crime and Information Center. In 2020 there were 918 missing indigenous men and boys and 578 missing women and girls. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control reports105 Indian men and 34 Indian women are murdered each year.

Knowing that 75% of murdered Indians are males, it is puzzling and frustrating to notice that most of the media coverage and political attention highlights only the struggle in the female indigenous population. In fact, a soon-to-be-released PBS documentary titled “Bring Her Home,” focuses only on the plight of women and girls, and provides zero mention of the statistical fact that men and boys make up the majority of missing and murdered indigenous people. Instead, men are spoken of as perpetrators with the comment that society must “reteach men how to be in a relationship with women.” This generalized misrepresentation damages the truth of the process and sadly, stagnates progress for the entirety of indigenous society.

PBS backed up its apparent feminist agenda with a discussion panel on March 15, previewing the “Bring Her Home” premiere. While the panelists were supporting a cause that deserves discussion, they only escalated the one-sided analysis that’s gained the exclusive hashtag #MMIW, in which W (for Women) replaces P (for People). Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women locks out any mention that males are victims of the same problem.

Panel members plead their case that we need to “build systems of justice that help us all;” “we are all responsible to each other;” “how do we not harm each other further;” and “we are all on the same team.” That hint at inclusivity, however, was destroyed with phrases like “holding men who are abusers accountable in our community,” and “we have to look at these men and what’s wrong with them.” No mention was made of the men and boys who are victims of the exact same problems, let alone to a greater extent.

Pushing the hot button of blaming men for a problem that actually affects males at a much higher rate runs contrary to finding solutions based on facts. Wouldn’t the process of solving this common problem work better by including every indigenous victim, rather than ignoring the existence of the majority of them? Native American women and girls deserve truth in this process, too. Every fact must be included to arrive at true solutions when it comes to Native Americans, as a whole, suffering from this murdered and missing epidemic.

Believe the Victim Campus Investigations Prosecutorial Misconduct Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Victim-Centered Investigations Violence Against Women Act

Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 21, 2022

Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training: Text of VAWA Reauthorization Bill

Link: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/39a64d5a-0551-4b9d-9814-521b9af00a18/E0B849C39D8A38B26A503509BD6824E8.vawa-reauthorization-act-of-2022.pdf

Section 205

Subtitle Q—Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training for Law Enforcement

4 ‘‘SEC. 41701. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON TRAUMA-INFORMED, VICTIM-CENTERED TRAINING FOR

6 LAW ENFORCEMENT.

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

8 ‘‘(1) the term ‘Attorney General’ means the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the

10 Office on Violence Against Women;

11 ‘‘(2) the term ‘covered individual’ means an individual who interfaces with victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking,

14 including—

15 ‘‘(A) an individual working for or on behalf

16 of an eligible entity;

17 ‘‘(B) an administrator or personnel of a

18 school, university, or other educational program

19 or activity (including a campus police officer or

20 a school resource officer); and

21 ‘‘(C) an emergency services or medical employee;

23 ‘‘(3) the term ‘demonstration site’, with respect

24 to an eligible entity that receives a grant under this

25 section, means—

1 ‘‘(A) if the eligible entity is a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4)(A), the

3 area over which the eligible entity has jurisdiction; and

5 ‘‘(B) if the eligible entity is an organization or agency described in paragraph (4)(B),

7 the area over which a law enforcement agency

8 described in paragraph (4)(A) that is working

9 in collaboration with the eligible entity has jurisdiction.

11 ‘‘(4) the term ‘eligible entity’ means a State,

12 local, territorial, or Tribal law enforcement agency;

13 and

14 ‘‘(5) the term ‘mandatory partner’ means a national, regional, or local victim services organization

16 or agency working in collaboration with a law enforcement agency described in paragraph (4).

18 ‘‘(b) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall

20 award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to collaborate with their mandatory partners to

22 carry out the demonstration program under this section by implementing evidence-based or promising

24 investigative policies and practices to incorporate

1 trauma-informed, victim-centered techniques designed to—

3 ‘‘(A) prevent re-traumatization of the victim;

5 ‘‘(B) ensure that covered individuals use

6 evidence-based practices to respond to and investigate cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

9 ‘‘(C) improve communication between victims and law enforcement officers in an effort

11 to increase the likelihood of the successful investigation and prosecution of the reported

13 crime in a manner that protects the victim to

14 the greatest extent possible;

15 ‘‘(D) increase collaboration among stakeholders who are part of the coordinated community response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

19 ‘‘(E) evaluate the effectiveness of the

20 training process and content.

21 ‘‘(2) AWARD BASIS.—The Attorney General

22 shall award grants under this section to multiple eligible entities for use in a variety of settings and

24 communities, including—

1 ‘‘(A) urban, suburban, Tribal, remote, and

2 rural areas;

3 ‘‘(B) college campuses; or

4 ‘‘(C) traditionally underserved communities.

6 ‘‘(c) USE OF FUNDS.—An eligible entity that receives

7 a grant under this section shall use the grant to—

8 ‘‘(1) train covered individuals within the demonstration site of the eligible entity to use evidence10 based, trauma-informed, and victim-centered techniques and knowledge of crime victims’ rights

12 throughout an investigation into domestic violence,

13 dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including

14 by—

15 ‘‘(A) conducting victim interviews in a

16 manner that—

17 ‘‘(i) elicits valuable information about

18 the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

20 ‘‘(ii) avoids re-traumatization of the

21 victim;

22 ‘‘(B) conducting field investigations that

23 mirror best and promising practices available at

24 the time of the investigation;

1 ‘‘(C) customizing investigative approaches

2 to ensure a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach to the community being served;

4 ‘‘(D) becoming proficient in understanding

5 and responding to complex cases, including

6 cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking—

8 ‘‘(i) facilitated by alcohol or drugs;

9 ‘‘(ii) involving strangulation;

10 ‘‘(iii) committed by a non-stranger;

11 ‘‘(iv) committed by an individual of

12 the same sex as the victim;

13 ‘‘(v) involving a victim with a disability;

15 ‘‘(vi) involving a male victim; or

16 ‘‘(vii) involving a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (commonly referred to

18 as ‘LGBT’) victim;

19 ‘‘(E) developing collaborative relationships

20 between—

21 ‘‘(i) law enforcement officers and

22 other members of the response team; and

23 ‘‘(ii) the community being served; and

24 ‘‘(F) developing an understanding of how

25 to define, identify, and correctly classify a re-

1 port of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and

3 ‘‘(2) promote the efforts of the eligible entity to

4 improve the response of covered individuals to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and

6 stalking through various communication channels,

7 such as the website of the eligible entity, social

8 media, print materials, and community meetings, in

9 order to ensure that all covered individuals within

10 the demonstration site of the eligible entity are

11 aware of those efforts and included in trainings, to

12 the extent practicable.

13 ‘‘(d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TRAININGS ON

14 TRAUMA-INFORMED, VICTIM-CENTERED APPROACHES.—

15 ‘‘(1) IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING

16 TRAININGS.—

17 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General

18 shall identify trainings for law enforcement offcers, in existence as of the date on which the

20 Attorney General begins to solicit applications

21 for grants under this section, that—

22 ‘‘(i) employ a trauma-informed, victim-centered approach to domestic violence,

24 dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and

1 ‘‘(ii) focus on the fundamentals of—

2 ‘‘(I) trauma responses;

3 ‘‘(II) the impact of trauma on

4 victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;

6 and

7 ‘‘(III) techniques for effectively

8 investigating domestic violence, dating

9 violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

10 ‘‘(B) SELECTION.—An eligible entity that

11 receives a grant under this section shall select

12 one or more of the approaches employed by a

13 training identified under subparagraph (A) to

14 test within the demonstration site of the eligible

15 entity.

16 ‘‘(2) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall consult with

18 the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime in

19 order to seek input from and cultivate consensus

20 among outside practitioners and other stakeholders

21 through facilitated discussions and focus groups on

22 best practices in the field of trauma-informed, victim-centered care for victims of domestic violence,

24 dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

1 ‘‘(e) EVALUATION.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of

3 Justice, shall require each eligible entity that receives a

4 grant under this section to identify a research partner,

5 preferably a local research partner, to—

6 ‘‘(1) design a system for generating and collecting the appropriate data to facilitate an independent process or impact evaluation of the use of

9 the grant funds;

10 ‘‘(2) periodically conduct an evaluation described in paragraph (1); and

12 ‘‘(3) periodically make publicly available, during

13 the grant period—

14 ‘‘(A) preliminary results of the evaluations

15 conducted under paragraph (2); and

16 ‘‘(B) recommendations for improving the

17 use of the grant funds.

18 ‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

19 are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General

20 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027

21 to carry out this section.

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:

California Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Stalking Title IX

Appellate Judge Issues Ground-Breaking Title IX Decision Against UCLA

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 14, 2022

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 45^th 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/

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

Penn State the Worst Offender Among Pennsylvania ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 21, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Penn State the Worst Offender Among Pennsylvania ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / December 21, 2021 – Five Pennsylvania universities have been on the losing end of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. The cases involved a broad range of due process and other procedural failings, including a presumption of guilt, lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, and sex discrimination against male students.

The school with the largest number of adverse rulings is Pennsylvania State University, with four decisions against the institution to date. In Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, for example, Judge Matthew Brann highlighted the school’s failure to adhere to fundamental cross-examination procedures:

“Penn State’s failure to ask the questions submitted by Doe may contribute to a violation of Doe’s right to due process as a ‘significant and unfair deviation’ from its procedures [regarding cross examination].”

This adjudicative failure suggests a “Queen of Hearts” mentality. In Lewis Carroll’s classic novel, Alice in Wonderland, the Queen of Hearts announced to her surprised retinue, “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”

In addition to Penn State, four other Pennsylvania schools have been found by judges to have violated basic due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

St. Joseph’s University – 2 judicial decisions
Drexel University – 1
University of Pennsylvania – 1
University of Sciences – 1

The Oxford Dictionary defines Kangaroo Court as an unofficial court held “in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.” More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations: https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Case Citations

Name of College	No. of Decisions	Case Citation
Pennsylvania State University	4	Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, 336 F. Supp. 3d 441 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2018) Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, No. 4:17-CV-01315, 2018 WL 317934 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2018) Doe v. Pennsylvania State University, 276 F. Supp. 3d 300, at 313 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2017) Doe II v. The Pennsylvania State University, No. 4:15-CV-02108 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2015)
St. Joseph’s University	2	Powell v. St. Joseph’s University, et al., No. 17-4438 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2018) Harris v. St. Joseph University, No. CIV.A. 13-3937, 2014 WL 1910242 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2014)
Drexel University	1	Saravanan v. Drexel University, No. CV 17-3409, 2017 WL 5659821(E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2017)
University of Pennsylvania	1	Doe v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 270 F. Supp. 3d 799 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 13, 2017)
University of Sciences	1	Doe v. University of Sciences, 961 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. May 29, 2020)

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

Washington & Lee the Worst Offender Among Virginia ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 21, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Washington & Lee the Worst Offender Among Virginia ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / December 21, 2021 – Seven Virginia schools have been on the losing end of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. The cases involved a broad range of due process and other procedural failings, including a lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, sex discrimination against male students, and a presumption of guilt.

The school with the largest number of adverse rulings is Washington and Lee University, with two decisions against the institution to date. In the 2015 decision, Judge Norman Moon revealed that campus officials declined to interview some of the respondent’s witnesses because they reportedly had all the facts they needed, revealing a “Queen of Hearts” mentality. (In Lewis Carroll’s classic, Alice in Wonderland, the Queen of Hearts announced to her surprised retinue, “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”)

In addition, six other Virginia schools have been found by judges to have violated basic due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

George Mason University – 1 judicial decision
James Madison University – 1
Liberty University – 1
Marymount University – 1
University of Virginia – 1
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University – 1

Kangaroo Court methods were not limited to Washington and Lee University. In Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University, the judge highlighted the university’s biased investigative methods and presumption of guilt:

“The undisputed record facts reflect that, as of the time plaintiff was allowed to present his defense before [university investigator] Ericson, Ericson admits that he had ‘prejudged the case and decided to find [plaintiff] responsible’ for sexual assault.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Case Citations

Name of College	No. of Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
Washington & Lee University	2	Doe v. Washington & Lee University, No. 6:19-CV-00023, 2021 WL 1520001 (W.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2021) Doe v. Washington & Lee University, No. 6:14-CV-00052, 2015 WL 4647996 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2015)
George Mason University	1	Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University, 149 F. Supp. 3d 602 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2016)
James Madison University	1	Doe v. Alger, 228 F. Supp. 3d 713 (W.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2016)
Liberty University	1	Jackson v. Liberty University, no. 6:17-cv-00041-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2017)
Marymount University	1	Doe v. Marymount University, 297 F. Supp. 3d 573 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2018)
University of Virginia	1	Doe v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia, No. 3:19CV00038, 2019 WL 2718496 (W.D. Va. June 28, 2019)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University	1	Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, No. 7:19-CV-00249, 2020 WL 1309461 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2020)

Campus Department of Education Due Process Investigations Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Seven Massachusetts Universities Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ U. Mass at Dartmouth the Worst Offender

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 21, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Seven Massachusetts Universities Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ U. Mass at Dartmouth the Worst Offender

WASHINGTON / December 21, 2021 – Seven Massachusetts schools have been on the losing end of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. The cases involved a broad range of due process failings, including lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, sex discrimination against male students, and a presumption of guilt.

Most egregious was the Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth lawsuit. Plaintiff John Harnois was a disabled veteran who enrolled at the University to pursue a doctorate in Oceanography, and maintained a 4.0 GPA during his first year of graduate studies.

The Harnois case attracted extensive negative publicity for the college. One legal analysis concluded tartly, “One would be hard-pressed to find more egregious allegations than those in Harnois.” https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/say-what-selective-enforcement-and-46477/

In his ruling, Judge Richard Stearns exposed the witch-hunt style methods utilized by the school’s Title IX office:

“During its investigation, UMass Dartmouth’s Title IX office asked two female students in Harnois’s graduate program to file complaints against Harnois, but both refused to do so. Eventually, the Title IX investigator contacted every female student in Harnois’s classes in search of derogatory information.”

In addition, six other Massachusetts schools have been found by judges to have violated basic due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

University of Massachusetts, Amherst – 1 judicial decision
Amherst College – 1
Boston College – 1
Brandeis University – 1
Harvard University – 1
Western New England University – 1

The campus adjudications that are challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process protections are under assault by Massachusetts institutions. A listing of the case citations is shown below.

More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations: https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Case Citations

Name of College	No. of Adverse Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
University of Massachusetts System	2	Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, No. CV 19-10705-RGS, 2019 WL 5551743 (D. Mass. Oct. 28, 2019) John Doe v. University of Massachusetts, No. 1:20-cv-11571 (D. Mass. April 28, 2021)
Amherst College	1	Doe v. Amherst College, no. 3:15-cv-30097-MGM (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2017)
Boston College	1	John Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. June 8, 2018)
Brandeis University	1	Doe v. Brandeis University, 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. March 31, 2016).
Harvard University	1	Doe v. Harvard University, 462 F. Supp. 3d 51 (D. Mass. May 28, 2020)
Western New England University	1	Doe v. Western New England University, 228 F.Supp.3d 154 (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2017)