University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Photo: Google

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former University of the Sciences student who claimed his expulsion was the result of a biased university investigation into his sexual encounters with two women.

In a July 29 ruling, U.S. District Chief Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the University of the Sciences' motion to dismiss the John Doe complaint filed by the expelled student.

Sanchez said Doe, who claimed discrimination under Title IX, failed to adequately plead his case in his amended complaint. The judge specifically rejected Doe's arguments that the university improperly relied on: a single investigator to investigate multiple claims of misconduct; special rules for claims involving sexual misconduct; procedures denying the accused the ability to confront and cross-examine the accuser; an inadequate appeals process; and policies that have been rescinded or questioned by the U.S. Department of Education.

“None of Doe's five conclusory allegations suffices to cast doubt upon the outcome of the disciplinary process. It is not obvious—and Doe has not adequately explained—why either the university's use of a single investigator or the Department of Education's decision to rescind nonbinding guidance (after a change in administrations) could create an articulable doubt as to the outcome of the university's investigation,” Sanchez wrote in his opinion.

Sanchez continued: “Doe similarly fails to explain why the university's appeals process, the special procedures applicable to sexual assault allegations, and his inability to cross-examine Roes 1 & 2—despite his having been interviewed twice by the investigator and suggesting seven separate witnesses in his defense—possibly tainted the outcome of the process here. At most, Doe has compiled a list of generalized complaints about the university's disciplinary process unmoored from any actual impact on the accuracy of his specific process.”

Doe's attorney, Riley Ross of Mincey Fitzpatrick Ross, said of the ruling, “We respectfully disagree with the court's decision. John Doe and his family are currently considering whether to appeal the decision.”

The university's attorney, Leslie Greenspan of Tucker Law Group, said, “This decision affirms the university's investigation and conclusions. The university takes allegations of sexual misconduct seriously and is pleased that the court recognized and upheld the university's thorough, complete and fair investigation.”

The case involves two female students' allegations against the plaintiff, who are also referred to by pseudonyms in court documents. According to the complaint, both women alleged that John Doe had sex with them without their consent. The plaintiff has alleged in his complaint that the sexual encounters with both women were consensual.

His encounter with the first woman took place in 2017, the complaint said, and the encounter with the second woman was in 2018. The two women were sorority sisters, according to the complaint.

Doe alleged that the university violated its own policies by failing to interview witnesses who would have been helpful to his defense, and by not questioning inconsistencies in witness statements that were favorable to the women accusing him of sexual misconduct.

The complaint also alleged that the university encouraged the first accuser to tell others about her complaint “in an effort to find other women willing to make a complaint against John.”

Doe was expelled. He appealed the expulsion, but his appeal was denied.

“Expulsion from the university will cause John to be denied the benefits of education at his chosen school, damaged his academic and professional reputations, and will affect his ability to enroll at other institutions of higher education and to pursue a career,” his complaint said.

To support his argument that the Department of Education's policy change cast doubt over the university's investigation, Doe pointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's June 28 decision in Doe v. Purdue University, in which the court reversed and remanded a district court's decision dismissing due process and Title IX claims stemming from university disciplinary processes.

But Sanchez called the comparison between Doe's case and Purdue “unhelpful,” noting that the allegations put forward by the Purdue plaintiff ”were far more specific than those presented by Doe.”

“For example, the Purdue plaintiff alleged that the Title IX coordinator credited the testimony of the complainant over his testimony without having met with the complainant and without providing more than a 'cursory statement' as to why she did so,” Sanchez said. “Doe makes no such allegation here, nor could he because the report makes clear he met with the university's investigator multiple times prior to the issuance of her report.”