SU, former student settle gender-based discrimination lawsuit

Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Editor’s note: This story includes descriptions of sexual assault.

UPDATED: March 20 at 10:00 p.m.

A former Syracuse University student who alleged the school engaged in gender-based discrimination in his expulsion has reached a settlement agreement with the university.

The case was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York Monday after it was informed by the parties that the case was settled outside of court.

In the lawsuit — initially filed in June 2022 — the plaintiff, who is referred to under the pseudonym John Doe, alleges the university took “damaging actions” and “inadequate procedures” in its “gender-biased” investigation into a sexual misconduct complaint filed against the plaintiff by the pseudonym Jane Roe — then a sophomore at SU.

“The Investigative Report was fashioned in a way to have Plaintiff found responsible,” the lawsuit reads. “Upon information and belief, the Investigator cherry-picked witness statements to paint Roe as incapacitated and Plaintiff as responsible, while burying or ignoring any evidence or statements that could negatively affect Roe’s credibility.”

The lawsuit raises complaints, such as SU’s conclusion that he had assaulted Roe in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, applied sexual misconduct in a way that discriminated against men, violated the New York State Human Rights Law and breached conduct under New York state law.

In the university’s motion to dismiss the complaint in June 2023, SU contended the plaintiff did not allege defects in the outcome or selective enforcement and has not pointed to any breach of contract. The plaintiff initially opposed the motion stating that his allegations were sufficient to state a claim.

The lawsuit claims that the university was “motivated to favor Roe” because it did not want to face “further criticism that it failed to protect female students from assault or to take the complaints of female students seriously.”

The lawsuit references a 2020 Survey on Sexual and Relationship Violence, in which about 19% of students who participated reported experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact since becoming an SU student.

In August 2020, SU updated its Title IX policies in accordance with regulations the U.S. Department of Education released earlier that year. Changes included allowing witnesses and survivors to be cross-examined during Title IX hearings, mandating live hearings for sexual harassment complaints with an advisor for both parties and not considering statements from individuals who refuse to participate in the hearings.

The lawsuit also suggests that the university’s mishandling of the case was informed by external pressure from the student body and the U.S. Department of Education due to a fear of losing federal funding.

“Upon information and belief, Syracuse has repeatedly been under fire for the number of sexual assaults on their campus and deprived Doe of procedural protections and operated with a gender bias against Doe in order to appear ‘tough’ on sexual assault,” the lawsuit states.

At the time of the sexual encounter, Roe was one of the leaders of SU’s pre-law fraternity Phi Alpha Delta. The plaintiff, who was in the process of pledging the fraternity, reached out to Roe and seven other older members of the fraternity to establish a mentor-mentee relationship.

After meeting for coffee to discuss the potential mentee-mentor relationship and briefly spending time together at parties at the social fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon, Plaintiff and Roe arranged to meet at a party at the DKE house on March 21, 2021, and mutually decided to go upstairs.

The lawsuit claims Roe then initiated sexual advances with the Plaintiff and was “awake, coherent, and a willing participant the entire time.” The plaintiff also claims Roe took pictures with him on Snapchat without his consent. After Roe was walked home by the plaintiff, Roe allegedly texted and called him to apologize and ask if he was OK.

The plaintiff and Roe spoke the next morning via FaceTime and, during the call, Roe allegedly claimed she did not remember anything from the night prior but still wanted to be the plaintiff’s mentor. Later in the day, Roe called the plaintiff and told him that she was uncomfortable and asked for space. That night, the president of DKE told the plaintiff he was no longer welcome as a member of the social fraternity because of what Roe had told the fraternity’s president, the lawsuit states.

DKE’s president then reported the allegations against the plaintiff to the SU Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities, which issued a mutual no-contact order to both parties.

After speaking with his mother, the plaintiff recognized that he was sexually assaulted by Roe, who used her “platform as a mentor to pressure him into a sexual relationship when plaintiff was only seeking out a professional relationship,” the lawsuit reads. He then filed a formal complaint with the university’s Title IX office.

Bernerd L. Jacobson, the designated Title IX investigator for the case, conducted interviews with both Roe and the plaintiff. The lawsuit claims a number of Roe’s witnesses provided “unsupported testimony that was even disproven by video surveillance footage from the party” and that others confirmed Roe and the plaintiff did not appear intoxicated.

On Sept. 16, 2021, Jacobson issued an Investigative Report, which the plaintiff claims included inconsistencies and errors. The plaintiff filed a response to the report in the year-long Adult Survivors Act window and requested that Roe be asked about substances she may have taken that could have affected her memory as one witness stated Roe may have consumed medication before the encounter.

The lawsuit claims Jacobson conducted follow-up interviews and failed to ask Roe about medications after asking “almost all” of the follow-up questions to the plaintiff. It also states Jacobson failed to include the witness observations of the plaintiff and Roe’s intoxication in the report, which stated that both he and Roe appeared to be “dead sober” the night of the party.

During the live hearing, the plaintiff claims Sheriah Dixon, the hearing officer, “grilled” him with questions which he felt was “unveiled victim blaming.” The plaintiff claims he was also “inappropriately questioned” by Roe’s advisor.

A university spokesperson clarified that the naming of Dixon an error in the complaint, as she was was not the hearing officer for the investigation.

“Roe, on the other hand, as the female complainant, was met with only clipped questioning that was, on information and belief, meant not to ‘retraumatize’ Roe, and allowed her to explain away the inconsistencies in her story and the stories of her witnesses as a result of alleged trauma,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit claims Dixon’s decision letter, issued on Nov. 29, 2021, was filled with inconsistencies in comparison to Jacobson’s timeline. The lawsuit alleges that there were discrepancies between the timeline of Jacobson, Dixon and those who were at the party.

“The failure of the Hearing Officer to make a factual determination as to a critical timeframe and the careless act of giving credibility to disproven approximations by non-testifying and/or under-the-influence witnesses improperly impacted the outcome of the hearing,” the lawsuit states.

According to the lawsuit, Dixon’s letter also provided no indication that Roe was unable to consent at the time of the sexual encounter and that the plaintiff knew or should have known that Roe was unable to consent at the time of the sexual encounter, which the lawsuit alleges is required by university policies.

The plaintiff claims the university limited his appeal to 10 pages, which the complaint alleges limited his ability to challenge all procedural inadequacies. The lawsuit claims the university’s “biased, illegal, and improper conduct” subjected the plaintiff to an improper investigation and adjudication process that “destroyed his reputation and will permanently impact his future education and career prospects.”

“Plaintiff has exhausted all available avenues for appeal under the University’s policies. This lawsuit represents Plaintiff’s only hope to redress the wrongs occasioned by Defendant,” the lawsuit reads.

This post will be updated with additional reporting.