Can a Georgia University Show “Pro-Complainant” Bias at a Sexual Misconduct Hearing?

Colleges and universities throughout Georgia have an obligation to keep their students safe. This includes addressing allegations of sexual misconduct levied by one student against another student. At the same time, campus-based judicial systems do not have to follow the same strict due process safeguards as criminal trials. This can lead individuals accused of sexual misconduct to face an unfair process that deprives them of a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves.

Federal Court Revives Breach of Contract Claim Against Emory Over Student Suspension

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit addressed such a case involving a student at Emory University in Atlanta. In April 2013, a woman identified only as “Jane Roe” attended a fraternity party. She approached a male member of the fraternity, “John Doe,” if they could smoke marijuana in his room. Doe and Roe were later alone in the room and the parties had sex.

Six months later, Roe filed a complaint with Emory University, alleging the sex was non-consensual and that Doe “choked her with her belt” during their encounter. Doe denied any wrongdoing and responded that Roe consented to sex.

Several months later, an investigator with Emory’s Title IX compliance office interviewed Roe. She recanted the allegation involving Doe choking her. She also admitted she was drunk during her encounter with Doe. Despite this, Emory proceeded to conduct a student disciplinary hearing against Doe. During this hearing, Doe alleged the university showed clear bias towards Roe. For example, he was not allowed to cross-examine Roe, but she was allowed to cross-examine him. Emory ultimately found Doe “responsible” for sexual misconduct and suspended him for a semester.

Doe subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging Emory violated Title IX by discriminating against him on the basis of sex and breaching its contractual promise to provide certain procedural protections during the university’s disciplinary process. A federal judge dismissed both allegations. On appeal, the 11th Circuit upheld dismissal of the Title IX claim but held Doe could proceed with his breach of contract claim.

With respect to Title IX, the appellate court said that at worst, Emory was guilty of “pro-complainant” bias with respect to allegations of sexual misconduct. But Emory did not demonstrate pro-female (or anti-male) bias. So while the university’s actions may not be fair, they were not illegal, at least not under Title IX.

Breach of contract, however, was a different story. Emory charged Doe with violating its Student Misconduct Policy. Doe maintained his “assent” to this policy and created a contract that provided him certain due process rights. Emory argued it had the right to unilaterally amend the contract to remove those rights. The 11th Circuit said there was insufficient evidence in the record to conclude Emory was correct on that point. So it returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers Today

A college or university’s misconduct allegation can derail your higher education and ultimately your long-term career prospects. So if you are facing any sort of university disciplinary charges, it is in your best interest to work with a qualified Atlanta student defense lawyer. Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers today. We serve clients throughout Georgia including Atlanta, Dunwoody, Alpharetta, Cobb County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Johns Creek and Sandy Springs.

Source:

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202213293.pdf