Category: 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

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:

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 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)

Campus Civil Rights Due Process False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

OSU Leads as the Worst Offender in the Ohio Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 17, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

OSU Leads as the Worst Offender in the Ohio Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame’

WASHINGTON / December 17, 2021 – Eight Ohio schools have been on the losing side of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. Typically handled by school Title IX offices, the cases involved a broad range of due process failings, including a presumption of guilt, lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, and sex discrimination.

The school with the largest number of adverse rulings is Ohio State University, with four decisions against the institution to date. Highlighting the problem of sex bias against male students, one judge stated alarmingly:

“OSU has affirmatively stated that it promises to continue to aggressively discipline male students accused of sexual misconduct with no reassurance of ensuring fairness and due process in the disciplinary process.” (Doe v. The Ohio State University 239 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1072 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2017)

Ohio State University is not the only college or university ignoring guarantees of campus fairness. Judges have ruled the following seven other Ohio institutions violated due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

University of Cincinnati – 2 judicial decisions
Miami University – 2 decisions
Case Western Reserve University – 1 decision
Muskingum University – 1 decision
Oberlin College – 1 decision
Xavier University – 1 decision
Youngstown State University – 1 decision

In total, judges have issued 13 rulings against 8 Ohio colleges and universities. Three of those decisions — Doe v. Oberlin College, Doe v. Miami University, and Doe v. University of Cincinnati — made their way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in decisions that determined campus policies in the other states within the Sixth Circuit. The case citations are listed at the bottom of this release.

The campus adjudications that have been challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process protections are widely ignored by Ohio institutions.

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

Case Citations

Name of College	Number of Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
Ohio State University	4	Doe v. Ohio State University, 311 F. Supp. 3d 881 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2018) Roe v. Adams-Gaston, No. 2:17-CV-945, 2018 WL 5306768 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2018) Doe v. Ohio State University, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1048 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2017) Doe v. Ohio State University, No. 2:15-CV-2830, 2016 WL 1578750 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2016)
University of Cincinnati	2	Gischel v. University of Cincinnati, S.D. Ohio No. 1:17-CV-475, 2018 WL 9944998, (S.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2018) Doe v. University of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. Sep. 25, 2017)
Miami University	2	Doe v. Miami University, 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018) Nokes v. Miami University, No. 1:17-CV-482, 2017 WL 3674910 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2017)
Case Western Reserve University	1	Doe v. Case Western Reserve University, No. 1:17 CV 414, 2017 WL 3840418 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2017)
Muskingum University	1	Schaumleffel v. Muskingum University, no. 2:17-cv-000463-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2018)
Oberlin College	1	Doe v. Oberlin College, 963 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. June 29, 2020)
Xavier University	1	Wells v. Xavier University, 7 F. Supp. 3d 746 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2014)
Youngstown State University	1	Richmond v. Youngstown State University, No. 4:17CV1927, 2017 WL 6502833 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 14, 2017)

California Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

10 California Universities Now Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ USC is the Worst Offender

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 17, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

10 California Universities Now Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ USC is the Worst Offender

WASHINGTON / December 17, 2021 – Ten California 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 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 the University of Southern California, with six decisions against the institution to date. In the Boermeester v. Carry case, the judge explicitly affirmed the necessity of cross-examination procedures:

“The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded to the superior court with directions to grant Boermeester’s petition for writ of administrative mandate. Should USC choose to proceed with a new disciplinary hearing, it should afford Boermeester the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine witnesses at an in-person hearing.” [emphasis added]

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

University of California – Santa Barbara – 2 judicial decisions
California Institute of Technology – 1
California State University – Chico – 1
California State University – Fresno – 1
California State University – Northridge – 1
Claremont McKenna College – 1
Pomona College – 1
San Diego State University – 1
Westmont College – 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 California 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/

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

Citations for California Judicial Decisions

Name of College	Number of Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
University of Southern California	6	Boermeester v. Carry, 263 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261, 279 (Cal. Ct. App. May, 28, 2020) Doe v. Allee, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109, 137 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2019) Doe v. Carry, Cal. Ct. App. No. B282164, 2019 WL 155998 (Cal. App. Jan. 8, 2019) Doe v. University of Southern California, 29 Cal. App. 5th 1212, 1234, 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 146, 164 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018 Doe v. Ainsley Carry et al., Case No. BS163736 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Dec. 20, 2017) Doe v. Univ. of S. California, 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2016)
University of California – Santa Barbara (UCSB)	2	Doe v. Regents of the University of California, 2d Civ. No. B283229 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2018) Doe v. Regents of the University of California, et al., Case No. 17CV03053 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Dec. 22, 2017)
California Institute of Technology	1	Doe v. California Institute of Technology, 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 10956 (Cal. Sup. Ct. July 9, 2019)
California State University – Chico	1	John Doe v. Trustees of the California State University, et al., No. BS167261 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 30, 2018)
California State University – Fresno	1	Doe v. The Trustees of the State of California, No. BS167329 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Feb. 5, 2019)
California State University – Northridge	1	Doe v. White, No. BS171704, (Cal. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2019)
Claremont McKenna College	1	Doe v. Claremont McKenna Coll., 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 655, 667 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2018)
Pomona College	1	Doe v. Glick, No. BS163739, 2017 WL 9990651 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2017)
San Diego State University	1	Doe v. Rivera, No. 37-2015-00029558-CU-WM-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct. Feb. 1, 2017)
Westmont College	1	Doe v. Westmont College, 34 Cal. App. 5th 622, 625 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2019)