[B]URLINGTON — A University of Vermont student sanctioned by the university for allegedly inappropriately touching another student has dropped a lawsuit that claimed the school violated his due-process rights.
The student, identified under the pseudonym “John Doe” in court papers, had been disciplined for allegedly groping an unnamed female student while dancing at on off-campus party hosted by the UVM Rugby Club last April.
Doe’s complaint, filed last November, argued the university conducted its investigation with a bias against him, and against men in general, and objected to several facets of the UVM investigatory system. It cited the university’s use of “… a single investigator model, a bias against males accused of misconduct, ignorance of the requisite evidentiary standards, use of a poorly trained Sanctioning Panel which violated its own procedures, and demonstrated hostility toward John Doe as a male accused.”
“Overall,” the lawsuit said, “John Doe was subjected to a biased and flawed process through which he was found responsible for conduct that he did not commit.”.
No reason was given for the decision to drop the lawsuit and Doe’s New York City attorney, Andrew Miltenberg, did not respond to a request for comment.
UVM spokesman Enrique Corredera, said the university had nothing to do with the student’s decision to withdraw his suit. In a statement to the Burlington Free Press, Corredera also said the school did not alter the student’s disciplinary finding, change his status as a student or pay him any money.
“UVM stands behind its policies and processes and how they were applied in John Doe’s case,” the statement said. “And those policies and processes have not been altered as a result of his lawsuit.”
Doe’s argument relies in part on public statements from U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who revoked a Department of Education policy letter that required colleges and universities to respond quickly to sexual misconduct allegations.
The letter also recommended schools use a “preponderance of evidence” standard when investigating sexual misconduct claims, a generally looser — but still subjective — standard for judging the veracity of a piece of evidence.
DeVos has argued that the policy letter, issued in 2011, did not do enough to ensure due process for people accused of sexual misconduct.
“Due process either protects everyone, or it protects no one,” DeVos said in a speech after rescinding the 2011 letter. Her remarks were quoted in Doe’s complaint.
Lawyers for UVM opposed Doe’s use of a pseudonym to shield his identity, and sought to delay a decision by the judge to either uphold the use of a pseudonym, or force Doe to reveal himself.
“UVM should accordingly be permitted a full opportunity to present argument as to why Plaintiffs identity should not be kept secret in this proceeding,” UVM’s lawyers wrote in an early December filing. That was the last document available in the case docket until word of the case’s abrupt dismissal Jan. 11.
Miltenberg, Doe’s lawyer, has featured prominently in a number of campus Title IX cases. In a December New York Times Magazine article, he estimated he has represented about 150 students, almost exclusively males, in campus Title IX proceedings and been involved in about four dozen lawsuits against schools.
Miltenberg represented the male student accused in Columbia University’s highly publicized “mattress girl” assault case and eventually settled a lawsuit against the school.
