Blog

Trial Courts Find Sex Bias in School Title IX Decisions

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | May 27, 2022 | 0 Comments

Literally dozens of federal trial courts across the nation have found sex bias in the ways that schools at all levels, from high school through college to graduate programs, are disciplining innocent students for false Title IX sexual misconduct charges. These trial court decisions show that, unfortunately, school disciplinary officials continue to bring their own biases and agendas to disciplinary proceedings. Biased Title IX investigators, coordinators, and decision-makers can so tilt the playing field as to make it impossible for an innocent student to contest false charges that the student committed sexual assault or sexual harassment against another student.

Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Case Decisions

Innocent students nationwide have been successfully suing their schools under Title IX, and its implementing regulation 34 CFR Section 106.45, both of which hold that school disciplinary officials must not bring their own sex bias to bear in ways that result in unfair, one-sided disciplinary proceedings resulting in unjust discipline. Consider these federal district court decisions upholding the accused students' rights to a fair and impartial hearing under Title IX and its implementing regulation:

  • The court in Doe v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, no. 6:20-cv-1220-WWB-LRH (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2021), found credible evidence that university disciplinary officials had used unsubstantiated, gender-biased assumptions and biased sexual stereotypes against the accused student in the student's Title IX disciplinary proceeding
  • The court in Moe v. Grinnell College, No. 4:20-cv-00058-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa Aug. 23, 2021), found credible evidence that the college's disciplinary adjudicator had used biased and stereotypical notions as to men's sexual intent to ignore the accused student's credible evidence while crediting the complainant's similar evidence
  • The court in Doe v. Columbia University, Case 1:20-cv-06770-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2021), found support for the accused student's claim that the university had caved to public pressure and criticism by a campus activist, causing the university to favor female complainants over male respondents generally and in the accused student's case
  • The court in Doe v. Purdue Univ., 464 F. Supp. 3d 989 (N.D. Ind. June 1, 2020), found that the defendant university's disciplinary official and panel member had each made comments or posed questions based on sexual stereotypes, undermining the accused male student's procedural and statutory rights, under pressure from Title IX activists

Retain a Premier Title IX Defense Attorney

The above federal trial court decisions show the risks that a student accused of Title IX sexual misconduct faces from a one-sided, biased disciplinary hearing. Don't risk your education, reputation, and future career with biased school disciplinary officials. If you face Title IX charges that you know or believe to be false, unsupported, exaggerated, or retaliatory, get the attorney representation you need to ensure that the sex bias of disciplinary officials does not undermine your defense and lead to your school suspension or dismissal. Retain national school defense attorney Joseph D. Lento and the Lento Law Firm's Title IX defense team for the winning defense of Title IX sexual misconduct charges. Attorney Lento and his expert team have helped hundreds of students nationwide preserve their education, reputation, and career against false Title IX allegations and other misconduct charges. Call 888-535-3686 for a consultation now or use the online service.

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. Attorney Lento and his team represent students and others in disciplinary cases and various other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Attorney 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 and his team have 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 any school-related issue or concern anywhere in the United States.

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 the Lento Law Firm 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, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York 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