Blog

Federal Court Extends Due Process Rights to Hearings at Private Schools

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Jun 27, 2019 | 0 Comments

A potentially groundbreaking Title IX ruling out of Tennessee has extended federal due process rights to students facing sexual misconduct accusations in private universities. While the development seems like a formality that is shocking only for the fact that it needs to happen, it has raised eyebrows in the legal field.

Rhodes College Football Player Expelled, Sues School

This particular Title IX case sounds like many other sexual misconduct allegations: The alleged victim attended a fraternity at Rhodes College with her date, who was a brother at the fraternity and a football player. While there, she drank heavily, used both marijuana and cocaine, and had to be helped out of the party.

Incoherent and incapacitated, she told the friends that picked her up that she had been raped.

News of the incident spread, and advocacy groups for sexual assault victims descended on the Rhodes College campus. Media coverage also contributed to pressure the school into expelling the accused student, who was in his last semester at the college.

The eventual Title IX hearing was rife with problems:

  • The alleged victim's lawyer made veiled threats to sue the school if it did not rule against the accused student
  • The alleged victim was not allowed to be cross-examined, and was not even present
  • The Title IX coordinator presented new evidence without warning or notice during the hearing, and the accused student was not allowed to challenge it
  • The hearing board only called witnesses that testified against the accused student
  • The alleged victim claimed that one of her female friends set up the alleged rape, but the board never questioned that friend's role in the event
  • The only person with direct knowledge of what happened – he had been alongside the alleged victim for nearly the entire party – was not called to testify by the board

Needless to say, the school found against the accused student and expelled him.

He subsequently filed a Title IX lawsuit of his own against the school, claiming that the lack of due process he was given had violated Title IX by discriminating against men.

He filed a motion to keep the school from expelling him while his lawsuit was pending.

Court Extends Due Process Responsibilities to Private Schools

In its ruling that forbade Rhodes College from expelling the accused student, the district court judge repeatedly made reference to a landmark Sixth Circuit case, Doe v. Baum, that required public institutions to take account of an accused student's due process right to cross-examine their accuser. However, while Baum was limited to public institutions, the Tennessee court extended its rule to private schools, as well.

Because the district court is the lowest tier in the federal judicial system, nothing changes for other pending cases. However, appealing a ruling and convincing the appellate court to actively overturn a district court's ruling is far more difficult than convincing it to passively confirm the outcome.

The importance of this ruling should not be understated, and we'll devote our next blog post to explaining why.

Title IX Defense Lawyer Joseph D. Lento

Joseph D. Lento is a Title IX defense lawyer and a national Title IX advisorContact him online or call his law office at (888) 535-3686 if you have been accused of sexual misconduct on campus.

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 locally and nationwide 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

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