University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Photo: Google

A federal appeals court has reinstated 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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in favor of the John Doe plaintiff, reversing a July 2019 ruling from U.S. District Chief Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting the University of the Sciences' motion to dismiss.

Third Circuit Judge David Porter wrote in the court's precedential May 29 opinion that Doe's case was wrongly dismissed because the plaintiff made plausible allegations supporting his claims that the school was improperly motivated by sex when it investigated and enforced its sexual misconduct policy against him in addition to breaching its contract with him by failing to give him fair treatment laid out in the policy.

Reached Monday, Doe's attorney, Riley Ross III, said, "My client and his entire legal team are grateful that the Third Circuit has allowed us to continue the fight to correct the mistreatment that John Doe suffered at the hands of USciences."

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.

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.

"To begin, Doe plausibly contends that USciences, in its implementation and enforcement of the policy, succumbed to pressure from the federal government. Doe alleges that, after the United States Department of Education issued [a] 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, USciences 'limited procedural protections afforded to male students like [Doe] in sexual misconduct cases.' He further alleges that USciences, 'encouraged by federal officials, has instituted solutions to sexual violence against women that abrogate the civil rights of men and treat men differently than women,'" Porter said.

"The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter 'ushered in a more rigorous approach to campus sexual misconduct allegations,'" Porter said. "Three of our sister circuits have found that alleged university overreaction to [the Department of Education] or other public pressure is relevant to alleging a plausible Title IX discrimination claim."

Porter said Doe's breach of contract claim was sufficiently supported as well.

"We hold that USciences's contractual promises of 'fair' and 'equitable' treatment to those accused of sexual misconduct require at least a real, live, and adversarial hearing and the opportunity for the accused student or his or her representative to cross-examine witnesses—including his or her accusers. We do not, however, attempt to prescribe the exact method by which a college or university must implement these procedures," Porter said.

The university's attorney, Leslie Greenspan of Tucker Law Group, said "We are disappointed by the Third Circuit's decision. We believe that the opinion is not consistent with existing state law. This case impacts many colleges and universities, and we are weighing our options."