Sharing is caring!

Interactive Spreadsheet of Lawsuits Against Universities

In 2016, SAVE published the first-ever quantitative analysis of due process lawsuits against universities. Lawsuits Against Universities for Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Misconduct Cases analyzed the first 30 lawsuits that had been decided at least partly in favor of the accused student.

Four years later, SAVE published a more comprehensive and detailed resource. Compiled by Benjamin North, the “Analysis of Lawsuits Against Universities with Positive Interim or Final Rulings for the Accused Student” lists 138 cases, representing over four times as many lawsuits as SAVE’s 2016 report, and provides greater analytic detail. The information is based on the judicial opinions/orders, not on the litigation documents from either side.

The interactive spreadsheet can be accessed HERE.


The spreadsheet consists of 105 columns, which are divided into three sections (see Column Descriptions at bottom of this page):

  1. Columns A-I: Case Information
  2. Columns J-BF: Causes of Action
  3. Columns BG-DA: Significant Allegations of Fact

At the top of each column is a downward arrow that allows the user to search for the cases of interest. Click on the arrow, then follow these steps:

  1. Unclick these boxes:
    • Select All
    • None
    • Any other boxes that are not of interest
  2. Click the desired Sort button: Sort A to Z, or Sort Z to A
  3. Press the OK button to accomplish the search
  4. To clear the search, click on the Clear Filter icon

For example, scrolling to the “State of School” column and then selecting on “Florida” yields these cases:

Using this search strategy, the user can identify cases of interest based on a variety of legal and other criteria.


Following is a description of each column:

A. Case Caption
B. Citation (if available)
C. Date of referenced Decision
D. Judge’s last name, first name
E. Court
F. State of School
G. Public or Private School
H. Appellate History
I. Status
J. Constitutional Due Process
K. Equal Protection
L. Procedural Posture
M. State Constitutional Due Process
N. Promissory Estoppel
O. Negligence (type)
P. Libel
Q. Slander
R. Other Defamation
S. Common Law Associations
T. Reckless and Wanton Misconduct
U. Privacy/Publication of Private Fact
V. NIED (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
W. IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
X. Malicious Prosecution
Y. Civil Conspiracy
Z. Fraud
AA. False Imprisonment
AB. Intentional Interference with Advantageous Third Party Relations/Tortious Interference with Contract
AC. Deliberate Indifference
AD. Erroneous Outcome
AE. Sex Discrimination/Unspecified Title IX
AF. Selective Enforcement
AG. Hostile Environment
AH. Archaic Assumptions
AI. Retaliation
AJ. Plausible inference
AK. 1981
AL. 1983
AM. 1985
AN. 1986
AO. 1988
AP. Title VI
AQ. Federal APA
AR. State APA
AX. NJ SA (NJ anti-discrimination)
AY. RICRA (RI anti-discrimination)
AZ. Breach of Contract
BA. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
BB. Deceptive Business Practices
BC. Spoliation – adverse inference
BD. Injunctive Relief to expunge record
BE. Injunctive Relief to change school policy
BF. CA Civ. Pro. §1094.5 Writ of Mandate – Private
BG. Biased Orientation
BH. Biased Training
BI. “Trauma-informed”
BJ. Biased Student Handbook
BK. Biased presentations/protests on campus
BL. Biased University Website
BM. Disciplined for private conversation w professor
BN. Plaintiff mistakenly admitted to misconduct
BO. Sua Sponte Investigation by University
BP. Inaccurate Investigative Report
BR. Biased Hearing Board
BS. Impaired right to counsel
BT. Board told low false accusation state
BU. Hearing Board told to assume rape
BV. Administration withheld evidence from accused
BW. Hearing Board did not read Investigative Report
BX. Biased Adjudicator
BY. OCR Pressure
BZ. At interview, no details of accusation
CA. Accused not allowed to see Investigative Report
CB. Hostile treatment of accused
CC. Affirmative Consent
CD. “The Hunting Ground”
CE. University did not notify accused of appeal process, then denied appeal as untimely
CF. Impaired ability to call witnesses
CG. University did not investigate accused’s witnesses
CH. Impaired cross examination
CI. Impaired ability to present evidence
CJ. Accuser and all of their witnesses did not attend hearing
CK. Accused has disability
CL. Accused filed counter-Title IX complaints
CM. Independent Single Adjudicator
CN. Former Judge as adjudicator
CO. Single Investigator Model
CP. Improper review of appeal
CQ. University exceeded time limit
CR. University asked accuser(s) to file complaint
CS. Third party complainant
CT. 2+ Accusers
CU. Consolidated accusers’ claims
CV. Accused not a student
CW. Accuser not a student
CV. Police Identification Issues
CZ. Banned from campus in interim
DA. No contact order