News and Commentary

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault After He Started Dating Her Friend. He Claims The School Had A Financial Incentive To Punish Him.

   DailyWire.com

A male student is suing his university after the school allegedly violated its own policies in order to find him responsible for sexually assaulting a female student who only came forward after he began dating a mutual friend.

John Doe, as he is referred to in court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire, attended the Jesuit, Catholic school Fairfield University in Connecticut. He also has ADHD. He was accused of sexual assault by a woman referred to in court documents as Jane Roe.

Fairfield in 2018 received a $299,954 grant to “Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence and Stalking on Campus” from the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women. The grant was received after John was punished, but the deadline to apply fell within the disciplinary procedures against him, and those seeking a grant have to show their policies are worthy.

The purpose of the grant, according to a passage quoted in John’s lawsuit, is to encourage “comprehensive coordinated community approach that enhances victim safety, provides services for victims and supports efforts to hold offenders accountable.” In addition, the grant “supports activities that develop and strengthen victim services and strategies to prevent, investigate, respond to and prosecute these crimes.” Further, “Colleges and universities should demonstrate to every student that these crimes will not be tolerated, that perpetrators will face serious consequences, and that holistic services are available for victims.”

The grant description on the DOJ website says nothing about due process, truth, fairness, or an unbiased investigation. A companion document to the one used to file for such a grant also ignores due process, fairness, or anything resembling an unbiased investigation. Indeed, the information goes into great length about what a grantee can’t do when it comes to alleged victims, but says nothing of the accused.

This grant, according to John’s attorneys, provided Fairfield with a financial incentive to find him responsible by any means necessary. And it did.

John and Jane met in the fall of 2016 through mutual friends. Jane, according to John’s lawsuit, invited him to sleep over three separate times. John obliged, but only cuddled Jane, as he refused to engage in sexual activity because Jane had a boyfriend. In September 2017, Jane told John she had broken up with her boyfriend, and the two engaged in “consensual oral sexual activity,” according to the lawsuit.

On September 29, 2017, Jane approached John at a university event, and later invited him to join her and her friends. Jane claimed she only had one or two drinks. The two walked back to John’s off-campus apartment and began talking and kissing. John invited Jane to his bedroom, and Jane accepted and the two continued kissing. John says in his lawsuit the two undressed themselves and John asked Jane, “Do you want to have sex?” as Jane touched his genitals. John says Jane verbally consented to sex and the two proceeded.

John’s roommate returned home and waited to enter the room until he no longer heard sounds of the couple having sex. He said everything sounded consensual, he had a short conversation with the couple after, and that Jane continued to see John and engage in sexual activity after that night.

John drove Jane home the next day, and the two exchanged friendly text messages for the next several day. Over the next week, the two continue to meet and have sex, until October 11, when John decided he no longer wanted to pursue a relationship with Jane.

After Jane had sex with John, she went to the campus health center for an STD test. At this time, she did not claim to be a victim of sexual assault. Months later, according to the lawsuit, Jane apparently went back to the clinic — after she accused John — asked that her records be changed to indicate she had reported to have been sexually assaulted when she came in for the STD test.

Two months after they first had sexual intercourse, Jane accused John of sexual assault. Her accusation changed constantly as she talked to Fairfield’s Department of Safety and her friends, according to the lawsuit, and provided redacted text messages to her friends telling them she had been sexually assaulted.

At one point during the investigation, one of Jane’s friends told Fairfield investigators that Jane and another roommate were both interested in John, which caused friction in the house. Yet another roommate, referred to as K.P., said John was pursuing Jane and the other roommate, and Jane only told her about the alleged sexual assault after John broke up with her.

John wasn’t informed of the full allegations against him until January 23, 2018. Minutes later, he was provided a copy of the investigation report, which contained only an “incident report compiled by DPS,” according to John’s lawsuit. He had just been informed of an investigation, and now he was being informed the investigation was complete and would move to a hearing.

The report contained only statements from Jane and her friends, who weren’t present for the incident but relayed what Jane told them.

During his first hearing, John discovered that a member of the hearing board had previously worked with Jane, yet this clear conflict of interest was ignored. Jane didn’t disclose this relationship prior to the hearing, as required by school policy at the time. Jane was also allowed to personally ask questions of witnesses, even though the school limited who could ask questions to the hearing board, a Department of Safety representative, or through questions provided to the hearing board by the accusers and accused.

Jane’s adviser was also allowed to give a list of questions to the hearing board to ask of John, another policy violation.

John was not allowed these same opportunities, according to his lawsuit, nor was he allowed to bring character witnesses, like Jane was able to. There were even witnesses who testified who weren’t on the list provided to John before the hearing, yet another violation of Fairfield policy.

John wasn’t able to cross-examine Jane or her witnesses, and was found responsible. John appealed on procedural grounds that didn’t line up with a new sexual assault policy issued by Fairfield.

On February 12, 2018, John was granted a new hearing. He filed several reports of misconduct against Jane for spreading information about the first hearing, which had been nullified, and also claiming John had filed a counterclaim against her. She was not punished for spreading misinformation.

On March 5, John faced a second hearing panel that was conducted using a new policy that didn’t exist at the time of John and Jane’s sexual encounter. This time, Jane submitted emails between herself and her friends with questionable timestamps, according to the lawsuit, and were heavily redacted. John was concerned that Jane set up the messages by asking her friends to ask her questions to build “evidence.” The university took no action toward John’s concerns.

Fairfield proceeded to violate its new policy, according to John’s lawsuit.

He wasn’t able to defend himself under the new policy, and “had to sit and listen to false allegations and accusations that he was a ‘rapist’ while unable to rebut the false claims.” In addition, Jane publicly threatened him while testifying, saying, according to the lawsuit, that “if my dad knew about this, he would kill you.” No action was taken against Jane for making this threat.

John was found responsible and barred from campus. He wasn’t expelled, but must complete his coursework from anywhere other than the classroom. His professors were not informed that he would need accommodations to continue his studies.

John’s appeal was denied, even though he presented a new witness who had not previously testified. He was told his appeal “did not provide new evidence or adequate evidence to substantiate an error in the proceedings.”

John then tried to get disability accommodations for his ADHD, since he now had to take his classes from home. John was denied these accommodations and barred from attending necessary labs for some of his classes. Essentially, the university didn’t expel him, but put restrictions on his studies so as to set him up for failure.

John is now suing. Neither Fairfield nor John’s attorney, Andrew Miltenberg (who previously represented the man who was accused by “Mattress Girl” Emma Sulkowitz), immediately responded to a Daily Wire request for comment.

A copy of the lawsuit was originally uploaded to Save Our Sons, an organization dedicated to helping male students falsely accused of sexual assault. In a post about the lawsuit, a woman using the pseudonym “Alice,” pleaded with others to consider innocent men on campus.

“After reading my summary of Doe’s court filing, perhaps the reader can understand why so many parents like me fight the many injustices that are perpetrated upon innocent decent loving and respectful college males,” she wrote.

Got a tip worth investigating?

Your information could be the missing piece to an important story. Submit your tip today and make a difference.

Submit Tip
The Daily Wire   >  Read   >  She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault After He Started Dating Her Friend. He Claims The School Had A Financial Incentive To Punish Him.