Case Western Reserve University Lawsuit

Case: 1:17-cv-00608-PAG Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/17 1 of 29.
PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN DOE,
CASE NO.:
Plaintiff,
v. JUDGE
CASE WESTERN RESERVE

UNIVERSITY,
Defendant
COMPLAINT
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Plaintiff, John Doe, sues Defendant, Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) and
alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff seeks relief against CWRU following CWRUs wrongful and unjustified
imposition of sanctions against him based on a fellow students false and unproven allegations of
intimate partner violence and non-consensual sexual intercourse.
2. This injustice was the direct result of CWRUs: (a) failure to adhere to CWRUs
own policies throughout both the investigation and the subsequent hearing, (b) deliberate refusal
to provide Plaintiff with due process as defined by CWRUs own policies, (c) excessive and
unbalanced focus on the concerns and interests of the female student complainant and the
convenience of CWRU to the total exclusion of the rights and interests of the male Plaintiff, and
(d) imposition of university discipline where Plaintiff's male gender was a motivating factor in the
decision to discipline him.

Case: 1:17-cv-00608-PAG Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/17 2 of 29. PageID #: 2
3. CWRUs unjustified actions violated its own Sexual Misconduct Policy, and the
requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-88 (Title
IX).
4. Title IX is a federal law prohibiting gender-based discrimination at colleges and
universities, which provides that: [n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . . 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
5. During the final year of his first term in office, President Barack Obama made a
Title IX policy decision to require American colleges and universities receiving federal tax money,
including CWRU, to aggressively pursue charges of sexual misconduct made by students under a
threat of losing federal funds. While the policy was ostensibly gender neutral, it was widely
understood, including by CWRUs administration, to be aimed at prosecuting and punishing male
students accused of sexual misconduct by female students.
6. Pursuant to the policy, on April 4, 2011, Vice President Joe Biden told an
auditorium full of students at the University of New Hampshire in Durham (UNH): We are the
first administration to make it clear that sexual assault is not just a crime, it can be a violation of a
woman's civil rights.
7. On the same day that Biden spoke at UNH, the United States Department of
Education's Office of Civil Rights, acting pursuant to President Obama's policy, sent a 19-page
document that would come to be known as the Dear Colleague letter to colleges and universities
across the nation, including CWRU, federalizing the prosecution of alleged sexual misconduct
complaints on college campuses. The letter contained new guidance about Title IX, the federal
2
statute prohibiting sex discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance.
8. The Dear Colleague letter included a long section on best practices advising
administrators to inform students reporting an assault of their options, and allow them to speak to
the police. They should conclude investigations promptlyideally, within two months. And
hearing officers should decide cases of sexual harassment not beyond a reasonable doubt, but
by a preponderance of evidence standardmeaning hearing officers do not need to be convinced
that an incident occurred, only that it is more likely than not that it did.
9. The letter warned colleges: When conducting Title IX enforcement activities,
OCR seeks to obtain voluntary compliance from recipients. When a recipient does not come into
compliance voluntarily, OCR may initiate proceedings to withdraw Federal funding by the
Department or refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation. The 19-page letter
only contained two sentences that directly addressed the rights of the accused.
10. Professor Janet Halley, Director of the Gender Violence Program at Harvard Law
School, warned that the sexual battery policies imposed by the Obama Administration are all but
designed to produce false positives innocent students wrongfully punished both because
of the looser evidentiary standard and because of Title IX officers desire to produce numbers that
show they take sexual violence seriously.
11. In April of 2011, CWRU hired Lawrence Mitchell to serve as the Law Schools
new Dean.
12. Prior to hiring Mitchell, CWRU knew that Mitchell had a history of sexual relations
with at least one of his students and others under his authority. Indeed, Pam Davis, Dean of the
Medical School and co-chair of the search committee for Dean of the Law School, discouraged
3
hiring Mitchell because of various personal issues and a previous encounter with him in which he
made inappropriate sexual comments, calling her a prude.
13. Nonetheless, CWRU hired Mitchell, who later made inappropriate sexual
comments to one of his colleagues, Raymond Ku (herein after referred to as Ku).
14. For example, during a faculty party on August 28, 2011, Mitchell made
inappropriate comments to Ku regarding his penis in front of Kus wife. Ku also witnessed
Mitchell engaging in inappropriate physical contact with an Assistant Dean.
15. The following week, a female colleague told Ku about Mitchells harassment of
two other female law professors. Ku deemed Mitchells actions in violation of the sexual
misconduct policy and reported him to the administration.
16. CWRU suggested that Ku address the problems directly with Mitchell. When Ku
did so, Mitchell threatened to fire Ku if he ever raised such allegations again.
17. Ku filed a formal retaliation complaint, but CWRU backed Mitchell and dismissed
Kus claims of retaliation, stating that they were unsubstantiated. Mitchell continued to punish Ku
by shutting him out of meetings, removing him from the Center for Law, Technology, and the
Arts, and increasing his teaching workload.
18. On October 23, 2011, Ku filed a lawsuit against CWRU.
19. In December of 2011, Mitchells own assistant pressed CWRU to open a sexual
harassment investigation into his behavior. CWRU was reluctant to investigate Mitchell and on
January 5, 2012, concluded after an initial informal inquiry that there was not enough evidence to
launch a formal investigation, despite numerous claims of sexual harassment by both female
professors and female students.
4
20. Thereafter, Mitchells assistant was reassigned outside of the law school and
subsequently laid off.
21. Mitchell resigned as Dean but kept his position as a tenured law professor and took
a sabbatical as the lawsuit continued.
22. In July of 2014, CWRU settled the lawsuit with Ku for an undisclosed settlement.
23. Mitchell was scheduled to begin teaching again at CWRU in the Fall 2015 semester.
There was a large amount of student push back against the return of Mitchell. The undergraduate
student government fiercely debated passing legislation calling for the firing of Mitchell, and
numerous students planned sit-ins and other protests upon Mitchells return. Succumbing to this
backlash, Mitchell resigned from his position at CWRU.
24. Because of this incident, and fearful of additional public scorn and litigation,
CWRU overhauled its Sexual Misconduct Policy.
25. The Policy is available online at
https://students.case.edu/handbook/policy/sexual/doc/sexualmisconductpolicy.pdf.
26. CWRU administrators were also instructed to take a hard line toward males for
similar alleged offenses. CWRU decided that federal funds had to be saved at any cost, and that
male students accused of sexual misconduct by female students should be prosecuted vigorously
and never be given the benefit of any doubt.
27. Plaintiffs prosecution by CWRU is an example of that fiat in action.
28. CWRU desired to find him guilty regardless of the evidence to make an example
to other male students and prove that the university took female students complaints of sexual
misconduct seriously. Further, CWRUs actions from the outset were focused on avoiding an OCR
investigation at all costs. CWRU's decision-makers and investigators were thus motivated to favor
5
the accusing female over the accused male to protect themselves and the university from
accusations that they had failed to protect female students from sexual misconduct.
29. CWRU was aware of the school's specific negative public attention, as well as the
national wave of news media coverage surrounding colleges not taking an offensive and aggressive
approach to combat critical coverage.
PARTIES
30. Plaintiff is originally from Williamsville, New York, although he currently lives in
Cleveland. During the events described below, Plaintiff was a full-time undergraduate student at
CWRU and resided in a privately-owned fraternity house.
31. CWRU is a residential institution of higher learning with its campus located at
10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44106. It has more than 4,500 undergraduates and 5,500
graduate students, and receives federal funds pursuant to Title IX.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
32. This Court has federal question and supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1367 because: (i) the claims herein arise
under federal law; and (ii) the state law claims asserted in this pleading are so closely related to
ands intertwined with the federal law claims as to form the same case or controversy under Article
III of the U.S. Constitution.
33. This Court has personal jurisdiction over CWRU as CWRU is located in and
conducts business within the Northern District of Ohio.
34. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted by Plaintiff occurred in this
judicial district.
6
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
35. Plaintiff grew up the only child of middle-class parents in a home where education
is held in high esteem. Plaintiff worked diligently in high school, succeeded in eight (8) advanced
placement courses, earned thirty-two (32) transfer credits toward his degree from CWRU and
graduated with a 98.3 average. While in high school, Plaintiff was a two-year varsity athlete, a
member of National Honor Society, a member of student government, serving as the Student Body
President his senior year. Plaintiff scored in the 99th percentile in the ACT standardized college
entrance examination.
36. Setting his sights on a top tier education, Plaintiff applied to numerous Ivy League
and other top tier programs. He ultimately chose CWRU and entered the Class of 2017.
37. Upon his acceptance, CWRU provided Plaintiff with copies of its school policies,
including the Sexual Misconduct Policy for Students.
38. Shortly after starting his freshman year at CWRU, Plaintiff became a member of
the Undergraduate Student Government, a member of a fraternity where he held several leadership
roles, and earned a position as an undergraduate researcher in the Sankaran Laboratory. During
his sophomore year, Plaintiff began volunteering weekly at Circle Health Services (formerly
known as The Free Medical Clinic of Greater Cleveland) as an HIV Intervention Specialist.
39. Through his student advocacy in the student government, philanthropic work
through his fraternity, and volunteering at the Free Clinic, Plaintiff was a positive impact on both
his school community and the Greater Cleveland Community.
40. During his sophomore year, Plaintiffs story was used for a promotional video
meant to encourage donations to CWRUs scholarship fund. And during his junior year, Plaintiff
was featured on the cover of CWRUs semester magazine THINK and was featured in a story
7
covering the research laboratory where we worked. His pictures were used in other promotional
capacities by CWRU, including on department websites and promotional flyers.
41. Plaintiff and Jane Roe met at the beginning of their freshman years in October of
2013.
42. During their freshman year, Plaintiff and Roe spent time doing homework together,
and started dating in February 2014.
43. During their sophomore and junior years, Plaintiff and Roe effectively lived
together, alternating sleeping in one anothers rooms. Plaintiff and Roe often went out on the
weekends together to social gatherings all throughout their relationship.
44. On the night of November 14, 2015, Plaintiff and Roe attended Plaintiffs fraternity
date party in Cleveland where they both voluntarily consumed alcohol.
45. Shortly after arriving, and while Roe was in the bathroom, Plaintiff began dancing
with one of his female friends. When Roe returned, she was angry, accused him of cheating, and
an argument ensued. Plaintiff and Roe proceeded to take an Uber ride from the party back to
Plaintiffs fraternity house.
46. Upon returning to Plaintiffs residence, he and Roe continued arguing about the
dance. Shortly thereafter, Roe pulled the fire alarm at the fraternity house.
47. Once the fire alarm was activated, Plaintiff and Roe exited the building along with
two of Plaintiffs fraternity brothers and another female. None of these witnesses had attended the
date party and were thus sober.
48. After the fire alarm was deactivated, Plaintiff went to sleep and Roe left the
fraternity house at approximately 10:00 p.m.
8
49. Shortly after 10:00 p.m., via text message, Roe claimed that Plaintiff had pulled the
fire alarm, and had called her derogatory terms, including a fucking bitch and had told the others
present to keep that bitch away from me. Furthermore, she claimed that Plaintiff had attempted
to hit her, and that both of Plaintiffs fraternity brothers had witnessed these events.
50. Over the next few days, Plaintiff and Roe discussed what had happened that night.
Plaintiff expressed regret for upsetting Roe but denied using derogatory language or attempting to
hit her. A few days later, the couple moved past these issues.
51. Several weeks later, Roe confessed to Plaintiff that she was in fact the one who had
pulled the fire alarm, but she had let Plaintiff take the blame for the incident. She made Plaintiff
promise not to tell anyone, as she did not want others to think poorly of her for pulling the fire
alarm. Additionally, Roe stated that, should the fraternity incur any fines for the false alarm, she
would cover half of the fine if Plaintiff would pay the rest. Plaintiff respected her wishes by not
telling anyone that Roe had pulled the fire alarm.
52. On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff and Roe attended an off-campus party where they
consumed alcohol and were intoxicated. After returning to Roes suite and visiting with her
roommates, the couple went to bed. At some point in the night, Plaintiff and Roe awoke and began
to argue. Roe later alleged that Plaintiff battered her with a mattress and digitally penetrated her
vagina without her consent that night.
53. No witnesses were present during this alleged incident, but Roe used her cell phone
camera to record two short segments of the argument.
54. The first video depicted Plaintiff intoxicated and visibly upset. The second showed
Plaintiff attempting to go to sleep while Roe yelled at him. Plaintiff also makes allegations of
physical abuse by Roe, an incident that occurred moments before the video was recorded.
9
55. Plaintiff and Roe discussed this argument the following days, and like before,
moved past it.
56. On May 7, 2016, both Roe and Plaintiff returned to their respective homes for
summer break.
57. On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff moved to Baltimore, Maryland to begin an internship.
Later that week, Roe expressed concern and jealousy over a close friendship that Plaintiff had
developed with another student, and on May 29, 2016, the couple broke up over the phone.
58. Roe stated that she was heartbroken and blind sighted [sic] by the breakup.
She expressed that, had they met later in life after completing their respective graduate degrees,
they could have been together forever.
59. Almost immediately after the breakup, Roe expressed that she wanted a clean break
and outlined a plan for them to avoid any interaction on campus. This included both Plaintiff and
Roe resigning from certain positions and avoiding each other on campus.
60. Plaintiff asked Roe to delete the videos from the night of April 29, 2016, because
he found them embarrassing. Roe sent Plaintiff copies of the videos and then claimed that she had
deleted her own copies. Roe then insisted that Plaintiff also delete his copies of the videos.
61. In late August, Plaintiff contacted Roe to discuss returning her personal belongings
still in his possession.
62. On August 28, Plaintiff and Roe met for a short period to exchange personal items.
63. Following this brief interaction, Plaintiff and Roe had no further contact.
64. Near the end of the Fall 2016 semester, nearly six (6) months after the breakup and
three (3) months since their last contact, Roe suddenly lodged allegations of intimate partner
10
violence and non-consensual sexual intercourse, both violations of CWRUs Sexual Misconduct
Policy.
65. On November 18, 2016, CWRUs Title IX Coordinator, Darnell Parker, called
Plaintiff and asked him to come to his office. Parker and Dean Patterson (Dean of Students)
informed Plaintiff that Roe had filed allegations of intimate partner violence and non-consensual
sexual intercourse against Plaintiff. Parker took notes of Plaintiffs responses. Plaintiff was utterly
blindsided by these allegations, as he had not interacted with Roe in almost three (3) months.
66. A formal letter setting forth the alleged policy violations was given to Plaintiff. He
was informed that an interim separation had been put in place. This meant that Plaintiff was
persona non grata and would have to complete the remainder of his coursework remotely and/or
off campus. Parker indicated that exceptions to the persona non grata status could be made for
final exams. He also expressed that the CWRU would do everything possible to complete the
investigation and subsequent hearing by the end of the Fall Semester. Parker stated to Plaintiff that
character witnesses were of little importance in sexual misconduct cases.
67. CWRUs Sexual Misconduct Policy States that interim sanctions, including interim
separation/suspension, can be put in place to protect the safety and well-being of individuals
involved in a complaint of sexual misconduct. It was later revealed that, when asked if Roe felt
safe on campus, she stated that she felt that she was not in any immediate danger. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs lack of contact with Roe also provided proof that he was not a danger to her safety or
well-being.
68. Before Plaintiff left the Office of Student Affairs on November 18, 2016, he spoke
with a counselor from University Counseling Services (UCS). Dean Patterson remained in the
room for the entire conversation and Plaintiff did not feel comfortable speaking his mind with
11
Dean Patterson present. This discouraged him from contacting UCS any further, causing him to
deal with the emotional distress caused by these allegations largely on his own.
69. Although Parker assured Plaintiff that Dean Harris would help him arrange to
complete of his coursework, Plaintiff had to make these arrangements largely on his own. Mr.
Parker also reversed his stance on granting exceptions for finals, forcing Plaintiff to find alternative
accommodations to complete his finals off campus.
70. Of concern was Plaintiffs final in EECS 302: Discrete Mathematics. This final was
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 13, 2016. On Friday, December 9, 2016, at
approximately 4:00 p.m., Dean Harris informed Plaintiff that he could complete the final for EECS
302 off-campus, but he would be in charge of making these alternative arrangements. Plaintiff
spent much of the following weekend emailing every department chair at Cleveland State
University and the Cleveland Institute of Art in search of a proctor.
71. Finally, approximately twenty-four (24) hours before the exam was scheduled to
begin, Plaintiff secured an arrangement to take the exam at Cleveland State University, with a start
time almost six (6) hours before the official scheduled start time. Between the time lost making
these alternative arrangements and the early start time, Plaintiff lost approximately twelve (12)
hours of studying time, effectively a full day.
72. On November 21, 2016, Mr. Parker informed Plaintiff that, due to Plaintiffs and
Roes previous involvement in the conduct process as student panelists, he would recuse himself
from the case and a third-party law firm would conduct the investigation.
73. On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff gave a second, more detailed statement to Diane
Citrino and Lauren Thompkins, of the Law Firm of Giffen and Kaminski, LLC with his attorney
present. They presented Plaintiff with a form regarding confidentiality and retaliation regarding
12
the allegations against him, and implied that Plaintiff should have signed the form during his first
meeting with Mr. Parker. This was the first time the form was presented to Plaintiff.
74. Throughout the investigation, every witness was questioned regarding Plaintiffs
relationship with A.P., a female friend, and fellow student at CWRU. When being questioned
directly, A.P. mentioned that in October Plaintiff and A.P. had hooked up. The investigators
then pressed for further salacious details regarding the hook up for purely prurient interests.
75. The Sexual Misconduct Policy states that a respondent has the right [t]o not be
questioned or have information presented about past sexual conduct or history with anyone other
than with the complainant or respondent, unless related to a pattern of prior violations or behavior
by the respondent that was substantially similar to the present complaint. Therefore, questions
regarding Plaintiff and A.P.s sexual history directly violated CWRUs Sexual Misconduct Policy.
76. On December 12, 2016, Mr. Parker asked Plaintiff if he would be okay with the
hearing being held after break, with every effort being made to have the case resolved before the
start of the Spring 2017 semester.
77. On December 14, 2016, Mr. Parker confirmed that the hearing would indeed be
held after Winter break.
78. On January 6, 2017, Rachel Hambrick from CWRUs Title IX office confirmed
that the hearing would take place on Wednesday, January 18 at 12:00 p.m. This would be during
the first week of classes, ignoring Mr. Parkers promise to hold the hearing earlier. It also meant
that Plaintiff was forced to miss his classes for the beginning of the Spring 2017 semester.
79. On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff and his attorney attended a pre-hearing meeting,
where they learned that the hearing was scheduled for both Wednesday, January 18th and Thursday,
January 19th due to the large volume of witnesses. CWRU planned to call all fourteen (14)
13
witnesses who had given statements to testify during the hearing, which contradicted the original
hearing notice.
80. Following this meeting, Plaintiff and his attorney were allowed to view the entire
file of evidence for the first time, including Roes initial statements and allegations.
81. On Tuesday January 17th, Plaintiff returned to the Office of Student Affairs to again
view the evidence file in preparation for his hearing the next day. He noted that new text message
threads submitted by Roe had been added to the file, yet he had not been informed of this new
evidence.
82. Additionally, when Plaintiff inquired about what witnesses would attend each of
the two scheduled hearing days, he was told that they intended to get through all of the witnesses
on January 18th. This was in contradiction to what he had been told at the pre-hearing meeting on
January 11th, where he was told that the hearing had been scheduled to be split over the two days.
83. On the day of the hearing, Mr. Parker was seen speaking with Roes parents and a
third unidentified women outside of the hearing room, even though he had recused himself based
on a conflict of interest.
84. Members of the panel displayed a clear bias against fraternities. Panelists often
attempted to discredit witness testimony based on fraternity affiliation, and made multiple
disparaging comments implying that Plaintiffs fraternity brothers were attempting to protect
Plaintiff and the fraternity.
85. This discrimination against male-only organizations inherently constitutes gender-
based discrimination.
86. The panelists also attempted to discredit Plaintiffs male witnesses by suggesting
that they would lie about any wrong doing to enhance Plaintiffs chances of attending MIT in the
14
Fall of 2017.
87. A panelist also asked inappropriate questions to A.P., one of the witnesses in the
hearing. Specifically, he asked her if she had ever been in an abusive relationship. Additionally,
he pressed for further details about Plaintiffs and A.P.s intimate encounter in October of 2016.
This again violated the respondents rights outlined by CWRUs Sexual Misconduct Policy.
Additionally, A.P. expressed to Plaintiff that she felt distraught after being asked if she had been
in an abusive relationship herself and this affected the rest of her testimony, as well as causing her
emotional distress for hours after the hearing.
88. Chairman Jones required Plaintiff to speak first when giving both his opening and
closing statement and when questioning all witnesses. Further, CWRU unilaterally assigned the
order of all witnesses who testified. This was in direct contraction to the hearing protocol outlined
in CWRUs Sexual Misconduct policy, which states that the complainant goes first followed by
the respondent. This allowed Roe to rely on emotional appeals and skewed facts to make her case
and afforded Plaintiff no opportunity to contest these facts, especially in his closing statement.
89. When Plaintiff pointed out that Chairman Jones was not following the procedure
outlined in the Sexual Misconduct Policy, Chairman Jones simply asserted that he was following
a procedure that had been used in the past. Using any procedures other than those outlined in the
Sexual Misconduct Policy is forbidden by the policy itself, and Plaintiff was never provided with
a copy of any alternative procedure.
90. To remedy CWRUs failure to follow its own Sexual Misconduct Policy, Plaintiff
attempted to ask redirect questions, which Chairman Jones denied.
91. Although CWRU stated that all fourteen (14) witnesses would be present, two (2)
witnesses did not appear before the panel. Plaintiff was never notified in advance that these two
15
witnesses would not be present.
92. Plaintiffs initial statement given to Mr. Parker was not present in Plaintiffs record
of the evidence, although he was presented with a copy in the middle of the hearing.
93. Chairman Jones failed to adequately control the hearing and allowed Roe to make
numerous speculative statements and allowed her answers to questions to deviate far from the
original question, especially in the case of simply yes or no questions. Additionally, he did
not prohibit panelists from asking numerous inappropriate or irrelevant questions.
94. Chairman Jones did not allow witnesses to make statements and instead only
allowed them to respond to questions. This directly contradicted the procedure outlined in
CWRUs Sexual Misconduct Policy.
95. The hearing lasted approximately six (6) hours and concluded around 6:30 p.m.
96. Following the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Parker told Plaintiff that he would
receive a decision within two business days. Plaintiff did not receive a decision until January 23,
at 4:00 p.m., which was outside of the two-business day period. This necessitated Plaintiff missing
additional classes.
97. Plaintiff was found responsible for intimate partner violence on November 14,
2015, and both intimate partner violence and non-consensual sexual intercourse on April 29, 2016.
98. CWRU gave no rationale behind their decision to find Plaintiff responsible of
intimate partner violence on November 14, 2015, and blatantly ignored witness testimony which
directly contradicted Roes statements.
99. In its rationale finding Plaintiff responsible for intimate partner violence and non-
consensual sexual intercourse, the panel relied primarily on the false notion that Plaintiff claimed
he had no memory of the night of April 29, 2016. This directly contradicts both written statements
16
and hearing testimony. The panel also stated that no witnesses provided evidence that would
support Plaintiffs assertion that it is not in his nature to assault anyone. But in making this bald
claim, CWRU ignored all witness statements and testimony regarding Plaintiffs character and
behavior.
100. Furthermore, all but one the witnesses supporting Plaintiff were males and all but
one of the witnesses supporting Roe were females. Based on the Panels proffered rationale and
statements made during the hearing, it clearly and deliberately ignored Plaintiffs witnesses
testimony and statements based upon male gender.
101. Ultimately, CWRU expelled Plaintiff until Spring 2018, at which time he is
permitted to reapply for admission.
102. After the hearing, Plaintiff learned that a fraternity brother that he encountered Roe
at ABC the Tavern on the night of January 19, 2017.
103. Roe began yelling at the fraternity brother regarding both the allegations she had
made against Plaintiff and the hearing itself. The fraternity brother, who was not a witness to the
investigation or the hearing, excused himself from the situation while Roes friends attempted to
stop her from yelling.
104. This is a clear violation of the confidentiality and retaliation clauses within
CWRUs Sexual Misconduct Policy.
105. Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with Mr. Parker regarding this incident on January
26, 2016. Mr. Parker acknowledged receiving the complaint on January 30, 2016. As of the time
of filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff is unaware of any investigation or other actions taken by the CWRU
regarding this incident.
106. Separately, when Chairman Jones advised Plaintiff of the outcome of the hearing,
17
Chairman Jones also advised that both parties had three (3) business days to submit an appeal.
Furthermore, according to the Policy if the appeal grounds are deemed valid the appeal will be
sent to the opposite party and they shall have three (3) business days to submit a reply. The policy
also states that CWRU shall attempt to resolve all appeals within ten (10) business days
107. Plaintiff submitted an appeal before the deadline at 5:00 p.m. on January 26, 2017.
The following day, CWRU acknowledged receiving the appeal and stated that the Office of
Student Affairs would be in touch regarding the next steps.
108. Plaintiff did not have any contact from CWRU until February 9, 2017. On that date,
he was notified that Roe had also submitted an appeal and that Plaintiff had until February 14,
2017 to submit a reply. Upon inquiry, he learned that his appeal was still being processed.
109. CWRUs failure to resolve the appeal in a timely manner and violation of the three
(3) day deadline to appeal is yet again a failure to follow its own procedures outlined in its Sexual
Misconduct Policy.
110. On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff was informed that his appeal was denied, without
further explanation, therefore leaving no further recourse through the internal University process.
111. In CWRU's finding that Plaintiff was responsible for sexual misconduct, Plaintiff
was deprived of the most basic due process and equal protection rights and was discriminated
against on the basis of his gender, which is evidenced in part by the following facts:
a. Plaintiff was wrongly separated from the university with no evidence that he posed
any threat to Roe or the CWRU community in direct contradiction to the sexual
misconduct policy making the completion of his Fall semester difficult and
suspension of the beginning of the Spring semester;
18
b. Plaintiff was not informed of new evidence that was submitted by Roe following
the pre-hearing meeting;
c. Plaintiff was instructed to make his opening statement, closing statement, and
witness questions before Roe, directly contradicting the hearing protocol outlined
in the sexual misconduct policy;
d. Plaintiff was denied the ability to ask redirect questions to witnesses, key witnesses
were not allowed to make independent statements, in direct contradiction to the
hearing protocol outlined in the sexual misconduct policy;
e. The hearing chairperson lacked control over the hearing, allowing Roe to make
speculative statements and statements that deviated far from the original questions
raised by the panel and Plaintiff;
f. The investigators and the panelists asked inappropriate and irrelevant questions
regarding Plaintiffs sexual history with one of the witnesses, in direct violation of
the plaintiffs rights outlined in the sexual misconduct policy;
g. Members of the Panel continually made reference to Plaintiffs fraternity and the
potential fallout to the fraternity if Plaintiff was found to have violated any section
of the Sexual Conduct Code;
h. CWRU failed to deliver a hearing outcome within two business days, in direct
contradiction to the statement made by Parker to Plaintiff with respect to the Sexual
Misconduct Policy;
i. CWRU failed to render a decision within ten (10) business days of the appeals being
filed;
j. CWRU never responded to Plaintiffs reporting of a violation of the confidentiality
19
clause by Roe; and
k. CWRUs failed to complete the entire hearing process in a timely manner,
specifically within their sixty (60) day guideline.
112. CWRUs arbitrary and capricious findings and disciplinary actions have caused
Plaintiff harm. Plaintiff's educational career has been put on hold and his academic future has been
severely damaged.
113. His ability to attend MIT or Harvard University next year, where he has recently
been accepted into both engineering PhD programs, is being threatened, the monies spent on
obtaining a college education at CWRU squandered, and his psychological and emotional health
has been greatly compromised by this entire ordeal.
COUNT I
(TITLE IX)
114. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.
115. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis
of gender in any federally funded education program or activity. It states in part: No person in the
United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance. 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
116. The principal objective of Title IX is to avoid the use of federal money to support
sex discrimination in education programs, and to provide individual citizens effective protection
against those practices. Title IX prohibits the imposition of university discipline where gender is a
motivating factor in the decision to discipline.
117. CWRU receives federal funding for research and development and for other
purposes.
20
118. Both the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice have
promulgated regulations under Title IX that require a school to adopt and publish grievance
procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of student . . . complaints alleging
any action which would be prohibited by Title IX or regulations thereunder. 34 C.F.R. 106.8(b)
(Dept. of Education); 28 C.F.R. 54.135(b) (Dept. of Justice). Such prohibited actions include all
forms of sexual harassment, including nonconsensual sexual intercourse, sexual assault, and rape.
119. In January of 2001, the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil
Rights, published a set of compliance standards for Title IX educational institutions to apply in
sexual harassment matters, including standards for Prompt and Equitable Grievance Procedures
and Due Process Rights of the Accused. 66 F.R. 5512 (OCR Standards). This Guidance is
available online at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf.
120. The OCR Standards require covered institutions like CWRU not only to ensure
the Title IX rights of the complainant, but also to accord[ing] due process to both parties
involved. (italics supplied).
121. The OCR Standards require schools to adopt prompt and equitable procedures
including, at a minimum:
a. Notice . . . of the procedure, including where complaints may be filed;
b. Application of the procedure to complaints alleging [sexual] harassment...;
c. Adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, including the
opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence;
d. Designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major stages of the
complaint process; and
e. Notice to the parties of the outcome of the complaint...
21
122. The OCR Standards also require Title IX schools like CWRU to ensure that all
employees involved in the conduct of the procedures have adequate training as to what conduct
constitutes sexual harassment, which includes alleged sexual assaults.
123. CWRUs overall sexual misconduct complaint program as applied in Plaintiffs
case fails to comply with the OCR standards in several ways, including (but not limited to):
a. Failing to comply with procedures set forth in its Sexual Misconduct Policy;
b. Instead, adopting and implementing procedures that afford greater prerogatives and
protections to the (female) accuser than to the (male) accused; and
c. Failing to provide adequate training for the CWRU employees charged with the
responsibility of protecting students rights under Title IX.
124. In its pre-hearing investigation of the complaint against Plaintiff, CWRU failed to
comply with Title IXs due process standards generally, as well as the OCR Standards, in multiple
ways, including without limitation:
a. Failing to perform a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation of all evidence
from both parties;
b. Failing to investigate beyond the materials voluntarily provided by the parties; and
c. Failing to retrieve documentary and physical evidence relevant to the investigation.
125. In its conduct of the adjudicatory conduct hearing, CWRU failed to comply with
Title IXs due process standards generally, as well as the OCR Standards, in multiple ways,
including, without limitation:
a. Effectively presuming Plaintiffs guilt, including making him persona non-grata,
because of his male gender before an investigation into the accusations against him
had even begun;
22
b. Failing to challenge Roes numerous inconsistencies in her statements or to
consider seriously the lack of corroboration of her claims of violence, especially
considering the eyewitness testimony rebutting her claims, and non-consensual
sexual contact because of her female gender; and
c. Failing to adequately consider exculpatory evidence or the statements/testimony of
key witnesses in support of Plaintiffs defense of consent because of Plaintiffs, and
the witnesses, male gender.
126. In reaching its decision and imposing sanctions on Plaintiff, CWRU, being
motivated by a discriminatory intent against Plaintiff because of his male gender, deprived Plaintiff
of the due process and equal protection rights required by the OCR Standards by, among other
things:
a. Finding Plaintiff responsible as charged under flawed procedures notwithstanding
the complete lack of evidence to corroborate Roes allegations and Roes own
inconsistent statements; and
b. Imposing sanctions that were unwarranted and disproportionate to the severity of
the charge levied against Plaintiff without any consideration of his clean
disciplinary record at CWRU and the lack of any aggravating circumstances.
127. In one of the videos submitted by Roe, Plaintiff alleged physical abuse by Roe.
However, CWRU did not investigate this claim. No official report or investigation of this claim
was made, in direct violation of CWRUs Sexual Misconduct Policy.
128. In both Plaintiffs and Roes allegations of physical abuse, no witnesses were
present nor was any physical evidence provided. For Roes allegations, an investigation was
23
launched and a subsequent hearing was held. For Plaintiffs allegations, no action was taken on
CWRUs part.
129. This constitutes a clear selective enforcement of CWRUs Sexual Misconduct
Policy, demonstrating a gender bias against males on CWRUs part.
130. Furthermore, when Plaintiff filed an official complaint regarding Roes blatant
violation of CWRUs confidentiality and retaliation clauses of the Sexual Misconduct Policy, no
action was taken by CWRU.
131. This lack of action again demonstrates selective enforcement of CWRUs Sexual
Misconduct Policy and a gender bias against males.
132. By treating Roe, a female, more favorably than Plaintiff in its disciplinary
investigative and adjudicatory process, CWRU discriminated against Plaintiff because of gender,
the discrimination was intentional, and the discrimination was a substantial and/or the motivating
factor for the CWRUs actions.
133. CWRU has deprived Plaintiff, because of his sex, of his due process and equal
protection rights through the flawed enforcement of guidelines and regulations that are unfair and
imbalanced to male students while unduly favoring female students, and the failure to implement
the limited protections that appear in those guidelines and regulations.
134. CWRUs Sexual Misconduct Policy also suit its institutional convenience,
accommodating pressures imposed upon it by recent national media focus on campus sexual
misconduct, its own mismanagement of its former law deans sexual misconduct, and campus
investigations by the Department of Educations Office of Civil Rights.
135. Based on the foregoing, CWRU engaged in a series of actions that ultimately
resulted in the panels erroneous finding that Plaintiff had engaged in sexual misconduct. Their
24
decision was the result of intentional discrimination against Plaintiff based on his male gender, in
violation of Title IX.
136. The erroneous outcome of the Conduct Hearing was due to gender bias against
Plaintiff, as demonstrated by the multiple procedural and adjudicatory missteps demonstrated by
CWRU throughout the entire investigative and disciplinary process favoring Roe to the detriment
of Plaintiff because of his male gender.
137. CWRU is primarily concerned with its image and reputation to current and potential
incoming students and their parents, rather than its obligations to provide a fair and equitable
investigative process to all its students regardless of gender.
138. Plaintiff suffered an erroneous outcome when CWRU found him responsible for
sexual misconduct based on his gender, and the discrimination was willful, deliberate, and
intentional.
139. CWRUs violations of its obligations under Title IX proximately caused Plaintiff
to sustain tremendous damages, including, without limitation, emotional distress, economic
injuries, harm to his pending graduate education and subsequent career reputational damages, and
the loss of educational opportunities and other direct and consequential damages.
140. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for the harm he suffered because of
CWRUs willful violation of its Title IX obligations.
141. As a direct and proximate result of the CWRUs foregoing wrongful acts, Plaintiff
is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys
and expert witness fees, litigation expenses, and court costs and disbursements pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1988(b).
25
COUNT II
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
143. Under Ohio state law, CWRU had contractual obligations to the Plaintiff, including
under the Student Code of Conduct, the Title IX policies, and other university policies affecting
students. CWRU created express and implied contracts when Plaintiff accepted an offer of
admission to CWRU, paid the tuition and fees, moved into a university dormitory, and attended
classes.
144. CWRU promised to allow its community members, including Plaintiff, to live in a
discrimination-free environment.
145. CWRU committed numerous investigative and procedural missteps, failed to
engage in impartial fact finding, failed to fairly weigh evidence presented by Plaintiff, and
harbored an overall institutional gender bias against Plaintiff as the male student accused of sexual
misconduct by a female student during his student conduct hearing, and prior thereto, all of which
led to the erroneous decision.
146. CWRUs discrimination of Plaintiff because of his male gender breached its own
policies, the guarantees of due process and fundamental fairness, and the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.
147. CWRU has deprived Plaintiff of his contractual rights to due process and equal
protection through the improper administration of the student conduct hearing process in violation
of CWRUs guidelines and regulations.
148. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for CWRUs breach of the express and/or
implied contractual obligations described above.
26
149. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be
determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys fees, expenses, costs and disbursements.
COUNT III
(BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING)
151. Based on the facts and circumstances, CWRU breached a covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the agreement(s) with Plaintiff by meting out a disproportionate
sanction against Plaintiff, notwithstanding the lack of evidence in support of Roes claims of non-
consensual sexual intercourse and intimate partner violence, and by not enforcing the Student Code
of Conduct against the underage students for consuming alcohol in a university dormitory. The
sanctions against Plaintiff are also disproportionate considering that Plaintiff had no prior history
of misconduct.
152. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these breaches, Plaintiff sustained
tremendous damages, including, without limitation, emotional distress, economic injuries, and
other direct and consequential damages.
153. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for CWRUs breach of the express and/or
implied contractual obligations described above.
154. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be
determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys fees, expenses, costs and disbursements.
COUNT IV
(INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)
156. By virtue of CWRUs violation of Plaintiffs contractual, due process, and equal
protection rights, including under Title IX, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm for which money
27
damages are an inadequate remedy.
157. To address that harm, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief from this Honorable
Court ordering CWRU to (i) reverse the outcome and findings made by the hearing panel as agents
and on behalf of CWRU against Plaintiff finding him guilty of sexual misconduct; (ii) expunge all
negative references contained in Plaintiffs disciplinary record; (iii) remove all references of
Plaintiffs suspension and sanctions from his education file, and (iv) permanently destroy any
record of Plaintiffs conduct hearing and findings resulting from it.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues presented herein.
/s/ Matthew A. Dooley

Matthew A. Dooley (0081482)
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and based on the evidence to be presented at
trial, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief against CWRU:
A. An award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial,

including, without limitation, damages to physical well-being, emotional
distress, economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages,
plus prejudgment interest, attorneys and expert witness fees, expenses,
costs, and disbursements;
B. The issuance of an injunction ordering CWRU to:
i. reverse the outcome and findings made by CWRU following

Plaintiffs panel hearing;
ii. restore Plaintiffs good standing at CWRU, including his
scholarships and other financial aid;
iii. expunge any negative references from Plaintiffs disciplinary
record;
iv. remove the record of Plaintiffs expulsion from his education file;
and
v. permanently destroy any record of Plaintiffs panel hearing and
resulting penalties; and
C. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just, equitable and proper.
28
Respectfully submitted,
OTOOLE, McLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY &

PECORA CO., LPA
/s/ Matthew A. Dooley

Matthew A. Dooley (0081482)
Stephen M. Bosak, Jr. (0092443)
5455 Detroit Road
Sheffield Village, Ohio 44054
Tel: (440) 930-4001
Fax: (440) 934-7208
Email: sbosak@omdplaw.com
mdooley@omdplaw.com
CHRISTOPHER G. THOMARIOS, ESQ., LLC.

Christopher G. Thomarios (0076637)
820 W. Superior Ave., Suite 840
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Tel: (216) 696-8217
Fax: (216) 696-9292
Email: christopher@cgt-law.com
Counsel for Plaintiff John Doe
29
Case: 1:17-cv-00608-PAG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/22/17 1 of 3. PageID #: 30
JS 44 (Rev. 08/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Doe, John Case Western Reserve University
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cuyahoga County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Cuyahoga
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora; Matthew A. Dooley, 5455 Detroit
Road, Sheffield Village, Ohio 44054; 440-930-4001.
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. 1332
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Title IX
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 500,000.00 JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
03/22/2017 /s/ Matthew A. Dooley
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
I. Civil Categories: (Please check one category only).
1. General Civil
2. Administrative Review/Social Security
3. Habeas Corpus Death Penalty
*If under Title 28, 2255, name the SENTENCING JUDGE:
CASE NUMBER:
II. RELATED OR REFILED CASES. See LR 3.1 which provides in pertinent part: "If an action is filed or removed to this Court
and assigned to a District Judge after which it is discontinued, dismissed or remanded to a State court, and
subsequently refiled, it shall be assigned to the same Judge who received the initial case assignment without regardfor
the place of holding court in which the case was refiled. Counsel or a party without counsel shall be responsible for
bringing such cases to the attention of the Court by responding to the questions included on the Civil Cover Sheet."
This action is RELATED to another PENDING civil case. This action is REFILED pursuant to LR 3.1.
If applicable, please indicate on page 1 in section VIII, the name of the Judge and case number.
III. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 3.8, actions involving counties in the Eastern Division shall be filed at any of the
divisional offices therein. Actions involving counties in the Western Division shall be filed at the Toledo office. For the
purpose of determining the proper division, and for statistical reasons, the following information is requested.
ANSWER ONE PARAGRAPH ONLY. ANSWER PARAGRAPHS 1 THRU 3 IN ORDER. UPON FINDING WHICH
PARAGRAPH APPLIES TO YOUR CASE, ANSWER IT AND STOP.
(1) Resident defendant. If the defendant resides in a county within this district, please set forth the name of such
county
COUNTY: Cuyahoga
Corporation For the purpose of answering the above, a corporation is deemed to be a resident of that county in which
it has its principal place of business in that district.
(2) Non-Resident defendant. If no defendant is a resident of a county in this district, please set forth the county
wherein the cause of action arose or the event complained of occurred.
COUNTY:
(3) Other Cases. If no defendant is a resident of this district, or if the defendant is a corporation not having a principle
place of business within the district, and the cause of action arose or the event complained of occurred outside
this district, please set forth the county of the plaintiff's residence.
COUNTY:
IV. The Counties in the Northern District of Ohio are divided into divisions as shown below. After the county is
determined in Section III, please check the appropriate division.
EASTERN DIVISION
AKRON (Counties: Carroll, Holmes, Portage, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas and Wayne)
CLEVELAND (Counties: Ashland, Ashtabula, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake,
Lorain, Medina and Richland)
YOUNGSTOWN (Counties: Columbiana, Mahoning and Trumbull)
WESTERN DIVISION
TOLEDO (Counties: Allen, Auglaize, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin, Henry,
Huron, Lucas, Marion, Mercer, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca
VanWert, Williams, Wood and Wyandot)
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16) Case: 1:17-cv-00608-PAG Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/22/17 3 of 3. PageID #: 32
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
Northern
__________ District
District ofof Ohio
__________
John Doe
)
)
Plaintiff
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
Case Western University )
)
Defendant
)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendants name and address) Elizabeth J. Keefer

Statutory Agent for Case Western University
10900 Euclid Avenue
Adelbert Hall
Room 311
Cleveland Ohio 44106-7020
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Matthew A. Dooley
Stephen M. Bosak, Jr.
O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora, Co LPA
5455 Detroit Road
Sheffield Village, Ohio 44054
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
GERI M. SMITH, CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Servers signature
Printed name and title
Servers address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Print Save As... Reset

Case Western Reserve University Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Western Reserve University Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:17-cv-00608-PAG Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/22/17 1 of 29.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE WESTERN RESERVE

intimate partner violence and non-consensual sexual intercourse.

decision to discipline him.

requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-88 (Title

4. Title IX is a federal law prohibiting gender-based discrimination at colleges and

understood, including by CWRUs administration, to be aimed at prosecuting and punishing male

students accused of sexual misconduct by female students.

woman's civil rights.

by a preponderance of evidence standardmeaning hearing officers do not need to be convinced

9. The letter warned colleges: When conducting Title IX enforcement activities,

show they take sexual violence seriously.

made inappropriate sexual comments, calling her a prude.

comments to one of his colleagues, Raymond Ku (herein after referred to as Ku).

Mitchell engaging in inappropriate physical contact with an Assistant Dean.

misconduct policy and reported him to the administration.

Arts, and increasing his teaching workload.

18. On October 23, 2011, Ku filed a lawsuit against CWRU.

professors and female students.

subsequently laid off.

a sabbatical as the lawsuit continued.

backlash, Mitchell resigned from his position at CWRU.

CWRU overhauled its Sexual Misconduct Policy.

25. The Policy is available online at

and never be given the benefit of any doubt.

27. Plaintiffs prosecution by CWRU is an example of that fiat in action.

approach to combat critical coverage.

CWRU and resided in a privately-owned fraternity house.

graduate students, and receives federal funds pursuant to Title IX.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

III of the U.S. Constitution.

conducts business within the Northern District of Ohio.

including the Sexual Misconduct Policy for Students.

his school community and the Greater Cleveland Community.

capacities by CWRU, including on department websites and promotional flyers.

and started dating in February 2014.

weekends together to social gatherings all throughout their relationship.

date party in Cleveland where they both voluntarily consumed alcohol.

Plaintiffs fraternity house.

date party and were thus sober.

fraternity house at approximately 10:00 p.m.

telling anyone that Roe had pulled the fire alarm.

vagina without her consent that night.

camera to record two short segments of the argument.

moved past it.

they could have been together forever.

still in his possession.

character witnesses were of little importance in sexual misconduct cases.

accommodations to complete his finals off campus.

University and the Cleveland Institute of Art in search of a proctor.

hours of studying time, effectively a full day.

start of the Spring 2017 semester.

held after Winter break.

Plaintiff and the fraternity.

85. This discrimination against male-only organizations inherently constitutes gender-

emotional distress for hours after the hearing.

a copy of any alternative procedure.

attempted to ask redirect questions, which Chairman Jones denied.

witnesses would not be present.

not prohibit panelists from asking numerous inappropriate or irrelevant questions.

CWRUs Sexual Misconduct Policy.

directly contradicted Roes statements.