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
© 2025 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 AllHolland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
3 minute readRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readLocal Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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