I wanted to highlight a lawsuit filed earlier this year for several reasons. First, it is a cautionary tale for accused students who seek the services of counselors when the direct supervisors of those counselors are Title IX officers—something we advise against in our guide for accused students. Second, it highlights what can happen when university personnel “go rogue,” the damage it can inflict on the lives of wrongly accused students, and what little recourse is available to them. Lastly, it speaks to concerns about gender bias in counseling and similar professions.

According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, John Doe was a student in the Doctor of Dental Surgery program at the University of Detroit-Mercy (UDM) for two and a half years. While a student, he periodically saw a university-provided counselor named Julie Hamilton. Around October 2018, UDM replaced Hamilton with a woman named Taryn Bailey Andersen who was “an entry-level social worker with a Masters Social Workers Limited (LMSW) license (i.e., a limited license to practice social work).” Her direct supervisor was Dr. Annamaria Silveri, the Director of the Personal Counseling & Wellness Center. Silveri was also the head of University of Detroit-Mercy’s Title IX office.

While seeing Andersen, he confided in her about an experience he had in 2013 with a female student at Baylor. According to the lawsuit:

On November 9, 2018, John met with Andersen, and she asked John about his past relationships. John told Andersen that he and the classmate had been friends for 18 months when the classmate abruptly and without explanation stopped communicating with him. John told Andersen that, when he finally went to the classmate’s place of work to see if she was alright, they had a cordial conversation that lasted, upon information and belief, no longer than approximately five minutes, but that the classmate later made false allegations about him to the Baylor Campus Police, who called John in for 15 minutes of questioning at the campus police facility.

John was hurt and embarrassed by this experience, and he shared it with Andersen confidentially, in her capacity as a counselor.

Instead of accepting John’s account of what happened between him and the classmate, Andersen erroneously labeled John a “stalker” based on her own prejudices and gender biases. Andersen initiated her own unauthorized investigation into John’s conduct while he was an undergraduate at Baylor University.

Naturally, the question arises of how an entry-level social worker would conduct such an investigation. The lawsuit elaborates:

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, Andersen emailed Lynnette Barbera (“Barbera”), a records manager at Baylor University Police Department (“BUPD”), indicating that she was “looking for information related to any past incidents involving stalking, harassing or other prolonged or severe unwanted contact” involving John.

Neither Barbara nor anyone else at BUPD confirmed to Andersen that John was involved in stalking or harassment. Regarding her inquiry to BUPD, Andersen stated to John, “we didn’t get anything.”

Andersen also made inquiries of John’s classmates and friends at UDM-SOD, and even probed John’s WhatsApp and private text messages with his friends and classmates at UDM-SOD, including messages John sent to Student 1 which concerned his views about “alpha,” “beta,” and “omega” males.

The next day, John Doe was socializing with a woman named Jane Roe who was not involved in the allegation. While John Doe had a romantic interest in her, they appeared to be hanging out as friends. This can be seen in a photo someone took of them “standing next to each other, smiling with their classmates.” On the same day, UDM’s Associate Dean for Academic Administration, Judith Jones, emailed Doe that she had received information about allegations against him and that he was barred from continued contact with Jane Roe.

Ms. Andersen “referred John for psychiatric evaluation and treatment.” In this referral, she made a “clinical summary” in which she made several false statements:

Andersen claimed that “client [John] was brought into the Office of Health and Wellness after several female students expressed concern about client’s interaction with another female student.” This statement was false. John had voluntarily come in to see Andersen after she introduced herself as the new counselor and invited him to stop by her office for a “chat.”

Andersen claimed that “client [John] indicated he was involved in ‘stalking’ a fellow classmate during his time at Baylor [University].” This statement was false. John had truthfully informed Andersen that his former classmate had misused authorities. Notably, John never once used the term “stalking” to describe the situation, as that was not what occurred.

Andersen claimed that she had “spoken with Baylor campus police and confirmed that an incident did occur and is waiting for the open records request to be processed in order to learn more.” This statement was false. John had never been the subject of a report by Baylor University Police.

Andersen made misleading statements that revealed her own values and biases. For example, she stated that John had “made various statements that indicate he believes in traditional, ‘hunter-gather’ notions of masculinity” and “has repeatedly referred to himself as ‘alpha.’”

Andersen’s statements in her “clinical summary” reflect the substance of John’s messages to his classmate Student 1, seen through the lens of Andersen’s own values and cultural and gender biases.

John’s WhatsApp chat and private text messages to his classmates contained no objectively abusive language and never promoted male dominance, mass shooting, or Incel. John had no history of violence toward his classmates or anyone and did not own or possess a gun.

Personally, I view earnest conversations about “alpha/beta/omega males” and “incels” as generally unproductive or misleading. Regardless, as a professional, Ms. Andersen might have consulted Guideline 9 of the APA Guidelines, which the lawsuit describes:

Guideline 9 of the APA Guidelines emphasizes that psychologists should resist imposing “their values and biases on male clients,” and instructs that “[g]ender self-awareness may help psychologists recognize when they may be framing a psychological problem from a gendered lens.” See id. at 18. (Internal citations omitted).

Andersen, who was not a psychologist or even a licensed social worker, imposed her own gendered biases and values on John. Exceeding her scope of professional competence, Andersen pathologized John’s expressions of traditional masculinity and arrived at the erroneous conclusion John was a stalker.

Because Ms. Andersen did not disclose that she was responsible for initiating the investigation against him and because Doe did not suspect she would betray his confidence, John continued to see her for counseling. In December, Ms. Andersen invited her supervisor Dr. Annamaria Silveri (who, again, was also the head of UDM’s Title IX office) to join a counseling session with Doe. The lawsuit describes this session as follows:

On December 6, 2018, Andersen invited Silveri to join her counseling session with John. Silveri questioned John about the alleged “stalking” incident at Baylor University. John corrected Silveri, telling her that he had not “stalked” his former classmate at Baylor and explaining that it was the classmate who had harassed him by misusing authorities.

That same day, Andersen left numerous messages for John’s psychiatrist, Dr. Silverman, including a voice mail message asking if Dr. Silverman had decided to move forward with “involuntary hospitalization.” Silveri asked Dr. Silverman if he could write a letter stating that John was “unfit” for dental school.

When Dr. Silverman informed Silveri that he would not write a letter stating that John was “unfit” for dental school because he had made no such determination, Dr. Silveri responded, “we will proceed with an involuntary leave of absence.”

This indicates that Doe’s guilt was determined before Doe received an official notice a week later that a formal complaint had been filed against him alleging “professional misconduct.” Twelve days after that, he received a notice that he had been placed on an involuntary leave of absence due to unspecified violations of the no-contact order “in addition to other unexplained behaviors inconsistent with the expected standards for Professionalism and Fitness for the Profession.”

Of course, the phrase “involuntary leave of absence” is misleading as well as injurious, as no “leave” was requested. Consequently, as the lawsuit states, “placing him on involuntary indefinite leave was tantamount to terminating him from dental school because John would be dismissed if he missed more than a few days of school in the upcoming session.”

Doe’s lawsuit was filed in April and alleges, among other things, breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is currently in the briefing stage for both a motion to dismiss and a motion to proceed pseudonymously. Doe is represented by Nesenoff and Miltenberg, a firm that has pioneered much of Title IX/accused student litigation over the past ten or so years and has represented over a hundred students in court. You can find this lawsuit, along with (currently) 878 others, in our Accused Students Database.

If you are a student who has been wrongly accused, take this lesson to heart: do not engage the services of a university-provided counselor if that counselor’s supervisor is a Title IX officer. Additionally, if you require counseling and have the means, you may also consider a professional that is not affiliated with the university. For more, please read our guide on what to do if you have been wrongly accused of a Title IX violation, and please consider our advisory services if you are currently the subject of a Title IX investigation.