In yet another instance of a school accused of violating the rights of one of its students, the University of Maryland has been sued by a student after he was suspended on sexual assault grounds – even after, his complaint alleges, criminal charges against the student were dropped. According to the complaint, the school's investigation and hearing processes were biased and deeply flawed. The student has asked a federal court in Maryland to order the school to reverse the suspension and to award damages. If you're facing a potentially serious disciplinary investigation or hearing at your college or university, contact the Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team at 888.535.3686 or through our online form to learn how our experienced student defense attorneys can help you protect your rights.  

The Allegations Against the University of Maryland 

In the complaint, the student – identified only as “John Doe” – claims that nearly a year after having consensual sex with a female student (referred to as “Jane Roe”), Roe filed sexual assault complaints against him with the Prince George County police department and with the University. The complaint states that the criminal charges against him were dropped within three months but that the University's disciplinary proceedings continued in a flawed and biased way, resulting in his suspension from the school.  

The School's Allegedly Flawed Investigation 

The complaint cites a number of problems with the way the school handled its Sexual Misconduct Investigation process. These include:  

• Only interviewing two of the members of Doe's fraternity that Roe had allegedly spoken to about the alleged sexual assault, despite the fact that the school's own Title IX training states that a wide range of witnesses – including people that the complaining party has spoken to about the incident – should be interviewed.  
• Failing to ask questions and follow up about discrepancies in the statements made by witnesses investigators did speak to, even though the school's training materials note that investigators should “identify discrepancies” in witness statements and “ask the hard questions.”  
• Not gathering evidence that, according to the school's own training videos, investigators should collect, such as text messages, social media, memos, photos, receipts, police paperwork, and more.  
• Failing to follow the school's own Title IX training guidelines by not recording any witness interviews.  

The complaint notes that according to the school's own policies, the “burden of gathering evidence sufficient to reach a determination regarding responsibility” in a disciplinary case is on the University, not on either of the parties.  

The School's Allegedly Biased Hearing Process 

The complaint also cites a number of problems with the disciplinary process, including the fact that the original experienced male hearing officer was replaced without explanation by a female second-year law student. Some of the other alleged issues are:  

• The school's apparent failure to record pre-hearing meetings with either Doe or Roe, and its delay in providing Roe's interview details to Doe.  
• The school's refusal to hold an in-person hearing, opting instead for a videoconference hearing because it was “the University's usual practice.” 
• The hearing officer's failure to acknowledge Doe's presumption of innocence, as directed by the school's disciplinary procedure manual.  
• The hearing officer allowed Roe's “support person” to be with her during the hearing, despite the officer's own instructions at the pre-hearing meeting that only advisors (such as attorneys) could be “in the same physical space as the party.”  
• The hearing officer insisted on interviewing the parties and witnesses at the hearing before allowing advisors to cross-examine them, and during her interview of Roe she asked “leading questions reflecting a bias towards Roe.” 
• Roe and the witnesses against Doe were “repeatedly” allowed to “add new information to their stories.”  

In her decision against Doe recommending he be expelled, the hearing officer characterized Roe's account of the alleged sexual assault as “largely consistent” despite also “explaining and minimizing the significance of Roe's inconsistent statements.” When Doe appealed the decision to the school, the University failed to notify Doe when Roe filed a response. The school's appeal panel eventually affirmed the hearing officer's decision but reduced the outcome from expulsion to a one-year suspension.   

In the early stages of this still-pending case, the court found that Doe “sufficiently demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits” of his claim and granted Doe's motion for a temporary restraining order against the University, directing the school not to enforce the suspension against Doe for the time being.  

The Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team Can Help Protect Your Rights as an Accused Student 

If you've been accused of serious misconduct at your college or university, you need the help of an experienced student defense attorney who will vigorously protect your rights under your school's own disciplinary policies as well as the law. It's not unusual for schools to treat accused students unfairly, and you need an experienced advocate on your side to help you level the playing field.  

The Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team has defended students across the country throughout the school investigation and disciplinary process, and we are here to help you, too. Don't face serious disciplinary charges alone – call the Lento Law Firm Student Defense Team today at 888.535.3686 or use our contact form to set up a confidential consultation. We're here to listen and to help.