Doe v. University of Connecticut, No. 3:20CV92 (MPS) (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2020).
02/11/2020Court granted TRO allowing John Doe to return to class pending litigation of his motion for a preliminary injunction. John Doe was able to show under the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction that he was entitled to a TRO.
Doe v. Arizona Board of Regents, NO.1 CA-CV 18-0784 (Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2019)
Unknown Party v. Arizona Board of Regents, No. CV-18-01623-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz. Dec. 27, 2019)12/31/2019John Doe’s administrative appeal was remanded to the Superior Court following the Arizona Court of Appeals’ finding that Arizona State University’s decision to expel John Doe was not supported by substantial evidence. In a simultaneous suit brought in the District of Arizona, Doe’s Title IX claim was allowed to proceed, while his due process and state law claims were dismissed.
Doe v. Haas, No. 19-CV-0014 (DRH)(AKT), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211575 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019)
12/17/2019John Doe was permitted to proceed with his Title IX erroneous outcome claim where the allegations in the complaint showed he was treated differently than his accuser during the adjudicative process. However, Doe’s due process and selective enforcement claims were dismissed.
Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, No. 19-1871 (1st Cir. Nov. 20, 2019)
11/26/2019The First Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction because Massachusetts’ breach of contract law does not require a private university to provide respondents an opportunity to cross-examine their accusers in order to comport with “basic fairness.”
Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, No. 19-10705-RGS (D.Mass. Oct. 28, 2019)
10/30/2019Former graduate student brought suit against UMass Dartmouth for Title IX and due process violations stemming from a Title IX investigation that ultimately found insufficient evidence to hold him responsible. Student’s main claims survived UMass Dartmouth’s motion to dismiss.
Ukwuachu v. State, No. 10-15-00376-CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 5783 (July 10, 2019).
10/16/2019Appellant’s due process rights were violated at trial where the State furnished false testimony to secure a guilty verdict. A prosecutor’s use of false testimony to obtain a conviction violates an individual’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the State’s use of false testimony in both the cross-examination of a witness, and their closing argument was reasonably likely to affect the judgment of the jury. The court reversed Appellant’s conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial.
Doe v. Univ. of Miss, No. 3:18-CV-138-DPJ-FKB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7490 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 16, 2019)
01/16/2019The University of Mississippi’s Motion to Dismiss was denied as to plaintiff, Andrew Doe’s Title IX and due process claims. Doe stated a viable claim for due process based on the biased nature of the training materials provided to the Judicial Council, materials that encouraged determinations in favor of the complainant, as well as an inability to cross-examine complainant. Doe’s Title IX claim was sustained due to a flawed investigation by the Title IX coordinator, who failed to collect the testimony of key witnesses, excluded exculpatory evidence, ignored clear notice of a biased panel member and was treated less favorable than his counterpart for engaging in the same conduct.
Doe v. Regents of the University of California, 28 Cal.App.5th 44 (2018)
10/09/2018Credibility determinations require effective cross-examination. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six found that UCSB denied student due process by failing to provide the accused with access to critical evidence, and not allowing adequate opportunity to cross examine witnesses or present evidence in their own defense.
Doe v. The University of Southern Mississippi, Case 2:18-cv-0015-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sep. 26, 2018)
09/26/2018University of Southern Mississippi ordered to immediately reinstate John Doe as a student in good standing after showing a substantial likelihood the lack of a live hearing with no cross-examination violated due process.
Doe v. Baum 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018)
09/07/2018Due process requires a hearing and opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Sixth Circuit holds that where the credibility of witnesses is in dispute and material to the outcome, due process requires a hearing and opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Title IX Blog