This case has been updated in our Title IX Lawsuits Database.
Michigan State University has settled with John Doe, who sued after the school’s grievance process found him responsible for sexual assault. Judge Janet Neff previously denied MSU’s motion to dismiss.
Michigan State University’s Flawed Title IX Procedures
According to WILX 10 out of Lansing, MI, the following were several concerns noted in the suit:
- One of the lead investigators has a background as a sex crime prosecutor and he approached the case from a prosecutorial stance rather than as a neutral fact-finder.
- Investigators did not give the man adequate notice and details about the case, indicating the investigation was tainted by the outset by gender bias and a presumption of his guilt.
- The man was not offered a live hearing or an opportunity to cross-examine the alleged victim or witnesses.
- Investigators did not properly vet the woman’s witnesses.
- With no witnesses to the actual alleged assault itself, the resolution was just a “credibility contest” between the man and the woman.
- The man lost that contest due to “gender bias on the part of the investigator and intense pressure at Michigan State to convict the males accused of sexual assault.”
- The lawsuit also claims that investigators ignored inconsistencies and physical impossibilities in the woman’s story.
The lawsuit was filed in December 2018. John Doe was represented by Nesenoff & Miltenberg, a firm with a reputation of pioneering success in Title IX litigation.
Thank You for Reading
If you like what you have read, feel free to sign up for our newsletter here:
Support Our Work
About the Author
Related Posts
This case has been updated in our Title IX Lawsuits Database.
Michigan State University has settled with John Doe, who sued after the school’s grievance process found him responsible for sexual assault. Judge Janet Neff previously denied MSU’s motion to dismiss.
Michigan State University’s Flawed Title IX Procedures
According to WILX 10 out of Lansing, MI, the following were several concerns noted in the suit:
- One of the lead investigators has a background as a sex crime prosecutor and he approached the case from a prosecutorial stance rather than as a neutral fact-finder.
- Investigators did not give the man adequate notice and details about the case, indicating the investigation was tainted by the outset by gender bias and a presumption of his guilt.
- The man was not offered a live hearing or an opportunity to cross-examine the alleged victim or witnesses.
- Investigators did not properly vet the woman’s witnesses.
- With no witnesses to the actual alleged assault itself, the resolution was just a “credibility contest” between the man and the woman.
- The man lost that contest due to “gender bias on the part of the investigator and intense pressure at Michigan State to convict the males accused of sexual assault.”
- The lawsuit also claims that investigators ignored inconsistencies and physical impossibilities in the woman’s story.
The lawsuit was filed in December 2018. John Doe was represented by Nesenoff & Miltenberg, a firm with a reputation of pioneering success in Title IX litigation.
Thank You for Reading
If you like what you have read, feel free to sign up for our newsletter here:
Support Our Work
About the Author
Related Posts
More from Title IX for All
Accused Students Database
Research due process and similar lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations (sexual assault, harassment, dating violence, stalking, etc.) in higher education.
OCR Resolutions Database
Research resolved Title IX investigations of K-12 and postsecondary institutions by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Attorneys Directory
A basic directory for looking up Title IX attorneys, most of whom have represented parties in litigation by accused students.
