In College Sexual Misconduct Cases, Many Confuse What 'Due Process' Means
As the law and DOE guidance expressly provide, schools must respond to sexual misconduct complaints by weighing the cases parties present equitably, never presuming falsehood from either side, always affording each the same procedural protections, including the right to access evidence, to rebut statements made against them, and to choose advisers.
August 24, 2017 at 06:01 PM
11 minute read
Last week, an opinion piece discussing the new University System of Georgia Sexual Misconduct Policy posited that the U.S. Department of Education must protect the respondent's due process rights in any “university-initiated Title IX investigation” of sexual misconduct allegations by “tweak[ing] past policies” to require, for example, that “the appropriate law enforcement and prosecutor's office investigate and adjudicate the complaint”; and that school disciplinary policies impose the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof in a way “consistent with constitutional norms in a criminal case.”
Make no mistake, I oppose all unjustly weighted sexual misconduct grievance procedures. It is for that reason that I object to any suggestion that DOE should, or can, act with unconstitutional caprice to discard statutes such as Title IX and the Clery Act. Indeed, Title IX's purpose is to ensure that parties are treated equitably in all aspects of their educations. The problem is that schools fail to comply.
The article supports its proposal with striking inaccuracies concerning not only the new policy, but also the laws that it violates. For example, the piece asserts that it was not until DOE released guidance materials in 2011 and 2014 that schools were required to address sexual misconduct complaints with “swift investigation and adjudication” using the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof.
This content has been archived.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 AllMovie Theater Agrees to Pay Former Employee $137K in EEOC Discrimination Settlement
3 minute readSettlement Reached in Transgender Discrimination Complaint Against Medical Provider
4 minute readStanding to Sue? 3rd-Party Discrimination Dispute Lands Before Justices
7 minute readFormer UPS Workers Lodge Discrimination Suit for 'Systemic Racial Bias' in Workplace Culture
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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