“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” English jurist William Blackstone is famous for writing. Does v. Regents of the University of Minnesota argues that UMN seems to believe the opposite, alleging the school is guilty of the following eight counts in finding ten students (later dropped to nine) responsible for sexual misconduct:

1. Sex Discrimination under Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.)
2. Race Discrimination under Title VI (42 U.S.C. § 2000d)
3. Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
4. Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
5. Defamation
6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
7. Tortious Interference with Contract
8. Civil Conspiracy

This lawsuit has been added to our Title IX Lawsuits Database. Here’s how it began.

Per the Complaint, Jane Doe, a member of UMN’s Spirit Squad, sought a party with school football players after their first victory of the season. She attended multiple gatherings in their apartments. Based on reports of her friends, she flirted with the players and was assumed to be going to have sex with them when she left for another player’s apartment.

She then engaged in sexual activity with several team members, part of which was recorded. After Jane Doe arrived home, her mother called the police to claim that she “had been sexually assaulted but did not want to file a report with the Police.” The police investigated. The recording was critical to the County Attorney declining to press charges, since investigators concluded the sex was consensual.

Jane Doe and her mother then contacted the school, reporting that twenty football players sexually assaulted Jane Doe (the number was later reduced to five) and asking for academic accommodations.

The accused men’s defenses were that the sex was consensual or that they never engaged in sexual activity with Jane Doe. Despite Jane Doe narrowing her accusation to five players, the school found ten players responsible of either sexual assault or sexual harassment. The panel recommended expulsion for five students, suspension for four, and probation for the last.

On appeal, the provost reversed a sexual harassment finding against one of the players on the grounds that there was no evidence he had been in contact with Jane Doe at all on the night of the incident, which somehow eluded the hearing panel and in particular Tina Marisam, the Director of the EOAA (Office of Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action). The rest of the findings and recommendations were upheld.

Alleged Deficiencies in University of Minnesota’s Title IX Investigation

The suit claims school officials failed in that they:

1. Did not consider it sufficiently impactful to Jane Doe’s credibility that she admitted to wrongly accusing one of the players
2. Interviewed Jane Doe six times and interviewed each player once, four of whom were interviewed without being told they were accused
3. Ignored the accuser’s admission that she had sex with a minor four years younger than her
4. Ignored the accuser’s “severe” self-contradictions, and exaggerated minor discrepancies in the players’ stories
5. Falsified a player’s statements in the investigative report and failed to correct it when notified
6. Accused the players of concealing evidence while ignoring Jane Roe’s deliberate attempts to suppress evidence such as the video recording
7. Ignored exculpatory information from police reports, such as Jane Doe’s admission that some of the sex was consensual
8. Immediately suspended all suspects until it was clear no criminal charges would proceed
9. Repeatedly “poisoned the well” by making public statements that the players’ actions were contrary to the university’s values, which contributed in part to the players being harassed with name-calling and threats of violence and death
10. Gave white males accused in other sexual misconduct investigations more leniency and options
11. Displayed bias by making public statements that they were taking a tough stance on sexual assault to protect female students
12. Afforded Jane Doe hours to present her side of the story during the hearing, while allowing the accused students a few minutes to prepare for a response
13. Disregarded the fact that Jane Doe failed to disclose the results of her medical examination following the alleged assault
14. Held conflicting interests by allowing the General Counsel (who presented the charges) to also be a decision-maker during the hearing

The players were punished in 2016 but filed the lawsuit in 2018. They are currently at the motion to dismiss stage, which has sparked renewed media interest. We’ll keep tracking this lawsuit and update our database as it moves forward.