Saint Joseph's University has rejected a student's allegations that he was unfairly investigated and disciplined for alleged sexual misconduct, arguing that the student should foot the school's legal defense bill for bringing knowingly unfounded claims.

The Philadelphia university filed an answer May 18 to the unnamed plaintiff's complaint, less than 48 hours after it was directed by the court to respond. The John Doe student, who was a sophomore there in the recently concluded semester, claims that he was treated unfairly by the school and its hired investigator—a lawyer from Cozen O'Connor.

In addition to denying Doe's claims, the school's attorneys at Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads argued that St. Joe's is not subject to liability under Title IX because it has “a fair and effective policy for reporting and redressing reports of sexual assault and other types of sex discrimination.”

The school is entitled to attorney fees, the counterclaim said, asserting that the student “knows these allegations are unfounded” but sued anyway.

“Specifically, plaintiff's complaint contains frivolous and unreasonable allegations that SJU intentionally withheld information from plaintiff during its investigation in an attempt to embarrass, humiliate and otherwise punish him,” the answer said.

St. Joe's alleged that Doe brought the complaint to damage the school's public reputation.

Doe is also suing the woman who brought the allegations against him. She is also unnamed, but is referred to in the complaint as Jane Roe.

The complaint, filed May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, said Doe and Roe met at a party in February. They returned together to Doe's residence hall and kissed there, the complaint said, and he contends it was consensual.

Doe learned a week later that he had been accused of sexual misconduct. But throughout the investigation, he alleged, he was not given access to certain evidence in the case that he said he learned about only after his discipline was determined.

Doe also alleged that Cozen O'Connor partner Elizabeth Malloy, who was hired to investigate Roe's allegations, was biased.

After the investigation concluded, Doe learned that Malloy found him responsible for sexual assault by squeezing Roe's neck while they were kissing, the complaint said. According to the complaint, that was based in part on photos of bruises on Roe's neck, which Doe was not shown before the disciplinary decision was made. Malloy found that the kissing was consensual, but the contact that led to the bruises was not, the complaint said.

Doe was placed on disciplinary probation, required to participate in online educational courses, write a reflection paper and have a follow-up with the school's community standards director. In addition, he was ordered to avoid contact with Roe—which he contends is difficult on a small campus—and he was not allowed to participate in an already-planned and paid-for study abroad program in Ireland because of the probation.

Doe is suing the university for breach of contract, Title IX violations, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, unfair trade practices and defamation. He is also suing Roe for defamation and intentional interference with contractual relations.

The school faced similar claims in 2013, when student Brian Harris sued, alleging he was not granted a fair investigation before being suspended from the university. That case settled in 2015.

Edward Schwabenland of Schwabenland & Ryan and Philadelphia lawyer John Mirabella are representing Doe. They did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment.