A federal judge allowed a lawsuit to continue against Brown University of gender-bias in its handling of a sexual assault investigation filed by former male student who has suspended in the Ivy League school.
U.S. District Judge William Smith, on Monday, said gender discrimination, breach of contract and other claims can go forward.
The student, identified as John Doe, alleged that Brown violated his rights and discriminated against him based on his gender in its handling of an alleged sexual misconduct complaint.
Brown had asked that the student's complaint was "overwrought" with innuendo and baseless allegations, there is no proper claims of intentional gender bias raised as required under Title IX.
Under the ruling, Judge Smith tracked the origin of such cases, noting that they arose in the aftermath of a 2011 letter from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights directing schools to "promptly investigate" any allegation of sexual harassment or assault when they know or "reasonably should know" of, regardless whether a student lodges a complaint. The letter requires schools to employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, meaning it was more likely than not the allegations occurred.
"Taking the facts in Doe's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Brown ignored exculpatory evidence, including the victim's own testimony in the Oct. 18 complaint that she had in fact articulated consent," Smith wrote.
Doe has created a "reasonable expectation" that if the case is allowed to proceed to trial, the discovery may yield evidence that Brown was biased toward female students in alleged sexual misconduct cases.
As stated in the complaint, Doe filed suit in April after being suspended from Brown for 2½ years based on sexual misconduct allegations brought by a female student that he had fondled and kissed after meeting her at a dormitory party in October 2014. Doe was enrolled in the Class of 2017, earned straight A's his freshman year, and hoped to pursue a career in neuroscience.
He also alleged that the Student Conduct Board, comprised of university staff and a student, found him responsible for misconduct and suspended him for 2 1/2 years after an unfair hearing in which board members failed to challenge or question her account and refused to let him present certain evidence and testimony. Brown erroneously put the burden on him to prove his innocence.
Doe also charged his accuser, Jane Doe, of California, for defaming and slandering him by filing a false sexual-misconduct report that led to his suspension from an "elite" liberal-arts university in Rhode Island and being labeled as responsible for a sexual offense.
As per Title IX, it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Such has been used to safeguard female students' rights, as in the landmark 1992 sex-discrimination case at Brown in which several female athletes sued after funding for their gymnastics team was cut. As a result, the university was forced to restore financing to the women's gymnastics and volleyball teams and promote other women's sports to varsity.
