Blog

Lawsuits Involving Title IX Sexual Misconduct Student Disciplinary Cases Are on the Rise

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Mar 06, 2016 | 0 Comments

Lawsuits against colleges and universities involving Title IX sexual misconduct proceedings are becoming more and more frequent.  A student at Georgia Tech University filed such a lawsuit against his school based on his claim that the Title IX sexual misconduct investigation, proceedings, and findings against him were unfair and violated his rights.

Georgia Tech University's Office of Student Integrity found the male student responsible for engaging in non-consensual sexual intercourse and coercion against a female student at an event in October 2013.  Both the male and female had been drinking (as often is the case in matters involving campus sexual misconduct).  The male student, in his lawsuit, claims that he received limited information regarding witness statements and was therefore unable to properly defend himself against the allegations through the University's student disciplinary process.  Named as defendants in the lawsuit is the University's President, the Dean of Students, the Director of the Office of Student Integrity, and the board that oversees public colleges in Georgia.  In addition to asking the court to allow him to take spring classes with the goal of completing his degree at the University, the students seeks unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.

The events that led to the lawsuit took place in October 2013.  The male student invited a female student to his fraternity house, both drank alcohol, socialized on the main floor of the fraternity house, and thereafter joined other students playing drinking games in a room of the fraternity house.  The male student claims that the female student followed him to his bedroom where she shortly thereafter became sick and started vomiting.  The male student claims that he went to get a sober member of the fraternity, both went back upstairs to get the intoxicated female student, and then both male students brought her downstairs while they waited for the female student's two friends to pick her up.

The investigative report prepared at the instruction of the Director of the Office of Student Integrity found otherwise.  Per the University's investigative report, the female student claimed that the male student turned off the lights and started kissing her while in his bedroom, and that she thereafter stopped him, stating that "she wanted to get to know him better."  The female student claimed that the male student then touched her genitals without consent, she vomited shortly thereafter, and the male student stopped.  (Touching someone sexually without consent is wrong, but how did the University find against the male student for non-consensual sexual intercourse based on the female student's claims?)

In his lawsuit, the male student claims that the University failed to properly investigate the matter.  The lawsuit claims that the the Director of the Office of Student Integrity did not interview most fraternity members suggested by the male student despite them being present at the October 2013 event in question.  The lawsuit also claims that the male student was not sufficiently informed about the witnesses involved in the disciplinary matter until 30 minutes before a final interview with the Director. The male student claims that he did not have time to prepare or investigate, and that he was not permitted to question witnesses because only summaries of the witnesses' conversations with the Director were made available to him.  The lawsuit claims, "“[The male student] was entitled to process commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations and the potential discipline, sanctions, and repercussions he was facing...The allegations in this case resulted in the harshest sanction available at the University, will have lifelong ramifications for [the male student], and are quasi-criminal in nature.”

As has been the case with other colleges and universities in the recent past, Georgia Tech University changed its Title IX sexual misconduct policy in 2014.  The University choose to no longer have a student disciplinary panel hear cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual assault.  The University instead made the Office of Student Integrity responsible for investigating and making findings regarding Title IX sexual misconduct claims.  The University also added expulsion as a disciplinary sanction for non-consensual sexual intercourse.  (It is difficult to understand how expulsion was not a possible disciplinary sanction for a finding of sexual misconduct against an accused student in light of the fact that disciplinary cases involving such claims are generally the most serious cases in the campus setting.)

The male student at Georgia Tech University is not alone.  More and more students, often male as may be expected, are filing similar lawsuits not just in Georgia, but in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and nationwide.  After being expelled or otherwise punished by their colleges and universities based upon Title IX sexual misconduct findings against them, students are arguing that their right to due process was violated.  This is not the first time, and it will not be the last time that the Title IX disciplinary process will be criticized for being fundamentally flawed.  In fact, there are more than 50 such lawsuits at the present time which speak to the same.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience passionately fighting for the futures of his clients. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at universities and colleges across the United States while concurrently fighting in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, and New Jersey. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand universities and colleges across the United States. 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, and is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide.

Comments

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

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

footer-2.jpg

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.

Menu