[B]URLINGTON — A University of Vermont student has dropped a lawsuit against the school alleging he was not given due process in the investigation of a sexual misconduct complaint filed against him.
The unidentified student dropped the lawsuit after the university requested that it be dismissed, according to UVM.
“John Doe has dismissed his lawsuit requesting additional information. UVM has provided John Doe with no additional information,” UVM Director of Communications Enrique Correderas said in a statement.
The suit filed late last month in federal court claimed the man was not given enough information to defend himself in the investigation process. To protect his privacy, his lawyers filed under a pseudonym: John Doe.
The college’s probe was in the early stages, and the student had not been found responsible or not responsible for the alleged sexual misconduct.
Details of the sexual misconduct case are not publicly accessible because of regulations that govern student privacy.
The university said it will now complete the sexual misconduct investigation using its regular process.
In the lawsuit, John Doe claimed his rights were violated when he was not given information during the investigation.
“(UVM) has adopted a policy that violates the due process rights of those accused of sexual misconduct,” the suit stated.
Lawyers for John Doe did not respond to requests for comment.
The university said the protection of due process does not allow the accused to interfere with an investigation.
But his lawsuit stated that if the student was found responsible, his life would change drastically.
“If deemed responsible for the allegation, plaintiff may suffer severe reputational harm, difficulty continuing his education and securing employment in the future profession of his choice,” the complaint stated.
He argued he did not have enough information to properly explain his side of the story.
The University of Vermont moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming the use of federal court, in this case, was not appropriate. To complain to federal court, the university argued, the student must demonstrate having been injured or harmed. Legal injury includes the loss of rights or loss of reputation.
The university argued John Doe had not shown any harm.
“He has not been deprived of any interest in life, liberty or property, and any allegation that such an injury will occur is entirely speculative, especially at this early stage of the investigation,” UVM stated in its response to the lawsuit.
The suit also requested the university halt the investigation until the court ruled on whether John Doe’s rights were violated.
The university said it acted properly. “The university is confident that its sexual misconduct policy and procedures fully comply with federal law,” it said in the statement.
On June 10, the University of Vermont sent an email to John Doe stating that the office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity would begin an investigation after an allegation of sexual misconduct was made against him, according to the lawsuit.
University investigator Nick Stanton emailed Doe on June 17, asking for a decision as to whether Doe wanted to participate in the investigation through an interview by June 22, the lawsuit stated.
John Doe’s lawyers responded June 23 stating that he denied the allegations and would cooperate with the investigation. Additionally, his lawyers asked for copies of statements of the student who made the allegations as well as any other witnesses, the suit stated.
“In order to have a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations we need to know specifically what is being alleged. The credibility of the accuser is a critical factor in this matter. Without knowing what the accuser said, (John Doe) is unable to prepare a defense and respond to the allegations,” his lawyers wrote to UVM on June 24, according to the lawsuit.
UVM maintained that it followed national guidelines for investigating allegations of sexual misconduct.
“Our procedures for conducting Title IX sexual misconduct investigations conform to the guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education and best practices adopted across the country,” the university stated in a statement to VTDigger.
