District Judge Allows Harvard Student Lawsuit to Go Forward

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Jul 13, 2020 | 0 Comments

In November 2017, the College's Administrative Board at Harvard University suspended an unnamed male student for four semesters in response to sexual misconduct claims under Title IX. Eleven months later, the student filed a civil suit against the university, claiming that Harvard had discriminated against him on the basis of both race and gender bias in how they had handled his case.

Last month, as the Harvard Crimson reports, a District Judge in Massachusetts permitted the plaintiff's civil suit to move forward on the basis of racial discrimination while dismissing the claim of gender bias.

The Details

The incident sparking the Title IX misconduct claim allegedly occurred in April 2017, when a female student (anonymously known as “Jane Roe”) claimed the now-plaintiff (“John Doe”) had performed sexual acts on her after a party while she was intoxicated and unaware. Harvard University guidelines state that when one participant in a sexual encounter is “so impaired or incapacitated as to be incapable of requesting or inviting the conduct,” the incident is treated as unwelcome sexual contact. It was on these grounds that the University suspended Doe.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff neither confirms nor denies the allegations, but instead claims the University discriminated unfairly against him on the basis of race (John Doe is African-American) by denying a request made by him and his accuser to resolve the matter informally, as the school has done in the past with white students. He also claimed Title IX discrimination on the basis of gender, saying the school attached less weight to his side of the story than to that of his accuser.

In her opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani affirmed that the racial discrimination case could move forward, saying that the plaintiff had shown a potential bias in the University's response by denying an informal resolution. However, she said there had not been sufficient evidence presented that the disciplinary procedure had been affected by gender bias.

What We Can Learn From this Case

In this case, “the devil is in the details,” as the saying goes. The plaintiff also alleged that the University committed “breach of contract” by not allowing the informal hearing. The judge effectively dismissed this part of the claim on the basis that the school's guidelines that informal resolution could only be permitted if the complainant, respondent, and Title IX Officer all agree on it—in this case affirming the right of the officer to deny the request. However, the judge did see a breach of contract possibility in the fact that the plaintiff was denied the opportunity for a follow-up interview before the conclusion of the investigation—something specifically called for in the guidelines—and affirmed the case could move forward on those grounds.

This case reveals several important takeaways:

  • Students aren't necessarily at the mercy of school disciplinary protocols under Title IX. (In this case, the District Court affirmed the student's right to sue the school for denying him his rights while upholding Title IX.)
  • Schools can be held to account for not following their own procedures consistently.
  • School policies can still be held up against the standard of due process, even though their investigations aren't part of the court system.

If you are a student accused of misconduct, or if you feel your school has enforced a misconduct rule against you unfairly or has failed you in a Title IX case, the Lento Law Firm can help. Call our offices at 888-535-3686 for a case evaluation.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he has sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address school-related issues and concerns anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact our offices today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations – the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website.  In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton County.  In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County,  In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties.  Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law.  The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship.  The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.