A new lawsuit, Doe v. University of Maryland, College Park, alleges that a student accused of sexual assault was unfairly punished by the university after a flawed and gender biased disciplinary proceeding. It has been filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and added to our Title IX Lawsuits Database. In this post, we’ll provide a summary of key portions of the complaint.

Background

In February 2022, John Doe and Jane Roe attended a frat party and later had consensual sex in Doe’s room. In the fall of 2022, Roe reported to Doe’s fraternity that he sexually assaulted her on the same night after she was asleep, claiming she woke up to being penetrated. Doe was kicked out of his fraternity.

In February 2023, Roe reported the allegation to law enforcement and the school. Doe was jailed for three days and then released on bond. The charges were dropped three months later, but the school’s investigation proceeded.

In July 2023, Doe was found responsible for sexual assault by the university. He was expelled within one semester of graduating. He appealed, and the sanction was later reduced to a one-year suspension.

Alleged Deficiencies in the School’s Proceedings

Doe alleges the university’s disciplinary proceedings were flawed and gender biased based on, among other things, the following:

• Investigators interviewed Roe and her three witnesses but did not record any interviews and refused to share any notes with Doe.
• Investigators failed to follow up on false statements by Roe’s supportive witness (Witness 1) and her mischaracterization of a cropped text message screenshot
• Another of Roe’s supportive witnesses (Witness 2) was unreliable because her recollection of events was from the fall 2021 semester, months before the alleged incident.
• Roe repeatedly made conflicting statements regarding Doe’s level of arousal at the time of the incident, her state of undress, the date and time of the incident, whether she knew that it was rape at the time of the incident, whether she had met Doe before the incident, her level of intoxication, whose room she knew she would be staying in on the night of the incident, the structure and contents of Doe’s dorm building and room, the time she left Doe’s room, whether she drove straight home, whether she “remembered every detail” (during the hearing she claimed she couldn’t remember over fifty times), and whether she had taken notes to rely on them due to lack of memory of details regarding the incident.
• Roe mistakenly claimed in a petition for a Protective Order that Doe has blue eyes and a “possible” chest tattoo (he has neither)
• Investigators failed to interview witnesses to whom Roe had spoken about the incident but were not Roe’s friends.
• Investigators made no attempts to secure additional electronic evidence and admitted as much
• Records from police reports were only included in the investigative file because Doe’s attorney sought them out and submitted them to be included
• None of the interviews were recorded
• The hearing was conducted via teleconference and therefore not a “live hearing” that would sufficiently allow testing the credibility of the accuser
• Roe’s testimony during the hearing included inaccuracies
• The hearing officer asked leading questions to Roe and asked witnesses to speculate regarding Roe’s motives, but held it against Doe when he made speculations about Roe’s motives
• Contrary to school policies, the hearing officer directly interviewed the complainant and allowed new information during the hearing that supported Roe’s version of events
• Title IX Coordinator Angela Nastase refused to provide Doe with a copy of Roe’s impact statement while incorrectly claiming school policies prohibited it. Nastase later provided it. Doe alleges the impact statement contains further contradictions that are exculpatory
• McGinn’s statement supporting her determination that Doe was responsible included:
  • Characterizing Roe’s account as “largely consistent” and minimized or ignored many inconsistencies in Roe’s statements
  • Claiming Roe had no motive to harm Doe with a false allegation while simultaneously offering three plausible motives
  • Shifting the burden of proof onto Doe by claiming Doe could not adequately explain why Roe would make a false allegation
  • Finding Doe less credible because he provided a less detailed account without mentioning any specific details his account was lacking
  • Ignoring that Roe had as much or more trouble in providing accurate or consistent details
  • Speculating that Doe “must have been intoxicated to the point of memory loss.”

In initial meetings, Doe provided no statements to investigators other than denying the allegation. This would make sense given that, at the time, the criminal charges against him had not yet been dropped. He later spoke about the night in question in more detail, saying he fell asleep while naked and spooning Roe, and he later awoke to Roe grinding her buttocks on him, but there was no penetration.

Doe’s appeal was based on procedural irregularities and new evidence (“text messages, photographs, and notes that Roe and the Witnesses withheld from the investigation”) that could not have been obtained prior to the school’s determination. While the appellate panel affirmed the finding that Doe was responsible, it determined that the sanction of expulsion was “substantially disproportionate” and “reduced it to a one-year suspension.”

Doe’s lawsuit alleges a single cause of action: that the school’s disciplinary proceedings reached an erroneous conclusion as the result of gender bias (“Title IX – Erroneous Outcome”). Nineteen exhibits (five of which are under seal) support the complaint. The evidence for gender bias can be summarized as follows:

• The backgrounds of the personnel involved are extremely slanted in favor of advocacy for women and complainants who are mostly women
• The personnel involved in Doe’s disciplinary proceedings have supported events and talks that stereotype gender violence as an issue pertaining to men specifically
• In honor of National Women’s Day, Jamie Brennan, an investigator in Doe’s case, posted an image on Facebook of a quote by William Golding that says, “I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been.” Brennan is now the Assistant Director for Title IX at the university.

Doe’s attorneys are Patrick Seidel, William Sinclair, and Todd Hesel at Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White, LLC.

Doe has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to “restrain and enjoin Defendant University of Maryland College Park (“College Park”) from suspending him and barring him from campus and participating in school activities.”

Also of note: Angela Nastase, Director of UMD’s Office of Civil Rights and Sexual Misconduct (OCRSM), is a defendant in another accused student lawsuit filed in 2022.

We will be following these lawsuits closely and updating them in our Title IX Lawsuits Database.