The Third Circuit took a hammer to USciences’ single-investigator model in this opinion, overturning the district court’s dismissal of Doe’s Title IX claim. Here is an excerpt:

To be sure, the investigator listened to Doe during her two interviews with him. But USciences did not provide Doe a real, live, and adversarial hearing. Nor did USciences permit Doe to cross-examine witnesses—including his accusers, Roe 1 and Roe 2. As we explained above, basic fairness in the context of sexual-assault investigations requires that students accused of sexual assault receive these procedural protections.

Thus, Doe states a plausible claim that, at least as it has been implemented here, the single-investigator model violated the fairness that USciences promises students accused of sexual misconduct.

Read the full decision in our Title IX Legal Database.

Thank You for Reading

If you like what you have read, feel free to sign up for our newsletter here:

Support Our Work

If you like our work, consider supporting it via a donation or signing up for a database.

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor is Title IX for All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer.

Related Posts

Accused?

We provide affordable advisory services in defense of students and faculty wrongly accused of misconduct. Contact us by filling out the form below or calling ‪(903) 309-1845. Learn more here.

More from Title IX for All

Research due process and similar lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations (sexual assault, harassment, dating violence, stalking, etc.) in higher education.

Research resolved Title IX investigations of K-12 and postsecondary institutions by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

A basic directory for looking up Title IX attorneys, most of whom have represented parties in litigation by accused students.

The Third Circuit took a hammer to USciences’ single-investigator model in this opinion, overturning the district court’s dismissal of Doe’s Title IX claim. Here is an excerpt:

To be sure, the investigator listened to Doe during her two interviews with him. But USciences did not provide Doe a real, live, and adversarial hearing. Nor did USciences permit Doe to cross-examine witnesses—including his accusers, Roe 1 and Roe 2. As we explained above, basic fairness in the context of sexual-assault investigations requires that students accused of sexual assault receive these procedural protections.

Thus, Doe states a plausible claim that, at least as it has been implemented here, the single-investigator model violated the fairness that USciences promises students accused of sexual misconduct.

Read the full decision in our Title IX Legal Database.

Thank You for Reading

If you like what you have read, feel free to sign up for our newsletter here:

Support Our Work

If you like our work, consider supporting it via a donation or signing up for a database.

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor is Title IX for All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer.

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.