Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

In lawsuit, former Cornell student alleges rights violated in sexual misconduct investigation

A former Cornell University student who was suspended for alleged sexual misconduct is seeking monetary damages and a reversal of Cornell’s findings in a lawsuit filed on Thursday with the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

On Dec. 14, 2013, the plaintiff, litigating under the pseudonym John Doe, allegedly engaged in sexual activity with Jane Doe after a party where the two had talked and danced.

ADVERTISEMENT

Both John Doe and Jane Doe were seniors at Cornell at the time.

Though the two had been drinking, John Doe claimed that “no one was very intoxicated as there had been professors present.”

Jane Doe invited the plaintiff to her dorm where the sexual activity allegedly took place.

Two months after the incident, Jane Doe contacted Cornell’s Office of the Judicial Administrator and reported she was raped while incapacitated on the night of the party, according to the plaintiff’s complaint.

An investigation process involving ten witnesses concluded with the recommendation that John Doe be expelled from Cornell, the complaint alleges.

The complaint adds that upon further examination, the reviewing panel decided to modify the sanction to withhold John Doe’s diploma for two years.

The complaint alleges the investigation was delayed and denied John Doe due process on the account of his sex, as well as that Cornell used a flawed evidentiary standard and a flawed single investigator model and ignored key evidence. It also alleges the sexual activity was consensual.

Melissa Osgood, a Cornell spokeswoman, declined to comment, noting a policy of not commenting on pending litigation.

Following Cornell’s investigation, the accused male student was denied of a job previously offered to him by a well-respected employer, Andrew Miltenberg, counsel for John Doe, told The Daily Princetonian.

“We are not suing to punish anybody,” he said. “We are suing for some justice to be applied to everyone.”

The current goal of John Doe’s counsel is to expunge the result of the investigation from the plaintiff’s school record, Miltenberg said, adding that he believes the investigator who handled the case “didn’t present the full information to the panel.”

“[Sexual misconduct] is a hot topic, and there is an active national dialogue about it,” he said. “We want to have a process that’s an environment where [women] can feel comfortable in making those charges but also that the person accused has a real opportunity to present the case properly.”

He alleged Cornell’s investigation collected four accounts that Jane Doe was not intoxicated, as well as affidavits contradicting Jane’s account, but the evidence was ultimately presented in a way detrimental to the plaintiff.

Miltenberg also alleges the numbers used in Cornell’s blood alcohol concentration calculations were based solely on Jane Doe’s self-account.

According to the complaint, John Doe said he was informed by the investigator that “seeing that [John Doe was] a graduating senior, in the worst case scenario [the investigator] will not recommend suspension or expulsion as [John Doe was] too close to graduation and this would not make sense.”

Miltenberg alleges specifically that Cornell violated New York state law, Title IX and other federal laws. He also alleges Cornell violated its own policies.

Miltenberg alleges Cornell may have overreacted to avoid accusations of being too light on similar crimes.

“I think it’s important that universities have very clear policies and procedures, and that procedure shouldn’t fail for the accuser or the accused,” Miltenberg said, adding that an environment that encourages young women to make valid accusations and an opportunity for the accused to properly defend themselves are not mutually exclusive.

Miltenberg has previously filed similar lawsuits against Columbia, Vassar College, University of Massachusetts Amherst and Drew University.

Princeton entered into an agreement with the Office for Civil Rights in November to resolve the OCR’s finding that the University was out of compliance with Title IX.

The OCR found the less stringent “preponderance of the evidence” standard should have been used instead of the “clear and persuasive” standard in adjudicating sexual misconduct cases.

The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that at least half of the evidence points in the direction of guilt.

The University, as well as Cornell, now both use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for Title IX-related cases.

The University has openly acknowledged that it waspressured by the federal government to adopt these changes, according to aNov. 5 ‘Prince’article.

ADVERTISEMENT