Court Backs Student Suspension in Sexual Harassment Case
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected arguments by Jeffrey Koeppel that the Valencia College had violated his First Amendment and due-process rights and the federal education law known as Title IX, which addresses discrimination based on sex.
September 14, 2018 at 11:02 AM
4 minute read
|
Amid a national debate about how colleges and universities should handle allegations of sexual misconduct, a federal appeals court upheld a decision by Valencia College to suspend a student for a year after he was accused of sexual harassing another student.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected arguments by Jeffrey Koeppel that the college had violated his First Amendment and due-process rights and the federal education law known as Title IX, which addresses discrimination based on sex.
The allegations against Koeppel included that he sent numerous sexually inappropriate text messages to a student, identified only as Jane Roe, who had rebuffed his advances. The woman reported Koeppel's messages and behavior to the Seminole County Sheriff's Office and the Valencia College dean of students, but Koeppel continued contacting her after being advised by a deputy and the dean to stop, according to Thursday's ruling.
A federal district judge upheld the college's decision to suspend Koeppel for a year, and the Atlanta-based appeals court backed that ruling.
“Accused robbers, rapists, and murderers have statutory and constitutional rights. So does a college student who is accused of stalking and sexually harassing another student,” said Thursday's 29-page ruling, written by Chief Judge Ed Carnes and joined by Judges Stanley Marcus and David Ebel. “The question in this case is whether Valencia College violated Jeffrey Koeppel's statutory or constitutional rights when it suspended him for his conduct toward another student at the college. The district court did not think so, and neither do we.”
The ruling came amid a broader debate about college and university procedures for determining whether students should be punished for alleged sexual misconduct. The New York Times has recently reported that the U.S. Department of Education is proposing new regulations that are designed, in part, to bolster the rights of students accused of misconduct. That would be a turnabout from the Obama administration, which issued guidelines focused on the rights of victims.
Koeppel met Jane Roe in the summer of 2014 when they were assigned to the same biology lab group at Valencia, according to the appeals-court ruling. Eventually, Koeppel told the woman that he was attracted to her, but she said she had a boyfriend and that she was not interested in a relationship outside of the biology class.
Shortly before the fall semester started, Koeppel saw something online that he thought indicated the woman was single. He contacted her, but she again rebuffed his advances and said she had been seeing someone for three years, the ruling said.
That led to a series of text messages, which were listed in the ruling. While several are too lewd to reprint, the texts included such things as, “I wondered if u were a hussie and i guess so” and “Dress like a hooker and now act like it too.”
After reporting the messages to the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, the woman later took the issue to Valencia Dean of Students Joseph Sarrubbo. After a process that involved the woman filing a report with campus security, Sarrubbo ultimately began an investigation and concluded that Koeppel had likely violated the school's student code of conduct.
Sarrubbo sent the case to a student conduct committee, which heard testimony from Koeppel and recommended that he be suspended for a year, a recommendation that was approved, the ruling said
Koeppel filed a federal lawsuit alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated. As an example, Thursday's ruling said Koeppel argued that “Valencia's policies violated his First Amendment rights because his messages to Jane were private, non-threatening speech, which did not cause a substantial interference at the school.”
But the appeals court said Koeppel invaded Jane Roe's rights and that Valencia was not barred from disciplining him for conduct that occurred off-campus. Also, it pointed to Koeppel's actions after being told by the deputy and dean to not contact the woman, saying the “worst aspect of Koeppel's misbehavior was not the quantity of it but the fact that instead of controlling his impulses Koeppel continued to harass Jane, knowing that it was unwelcome and despite being told to leave her alone. He wouldn't leave her alone.”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250