FOLLOW US

Emory University must face a lawsuit filed by a male student who claims he was mistreated during a hearing about sexual assault accusations against him, the Eleventh Circuit ruled. The court determined the student had provided sufficient details to suggest that the school's sexual misconduct policy created an implied contract between them.

 Emory Sex Assault Suit : Court's Decision

In a published opinion on Thursday, a unanimous three-judge panel reversed the dismissal of the former Emory student's breach-of-contract claims. The student, referred to as John Doe, alleged that the Atlanta university failed to adhere to its sexual misconduct policies during the investigation and hearing. Emory ultimately found Doe responsible for sexual misconduct and suspended him for a semester, which he claims cost him a lucrative job post-graduation.

Title IX Claim Dismissed

The appeals court, however, upheld the dismissal of Doe's Title IX discrimination claim, stating he hadn't shown that Emory was biased against him because of his gender. U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote for the panel, noting, "Such bias isn't necessarily suggestive of unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX because, of course, a complainant can be either male or female."

 Emory Sex Assault Suit : Allegations and Investigation

Doe's complaint, filed in July 2021, claimed he had consensual sex with a female student at an April 2019 fraternity party. Six months later, the woman accused him of sexual assault and choking her with her belt. Doe contended that throughout the investigation, the woman's story shifted, and she eventually admitted her belt was on the floor during the incident. Despite this, Emory presumed his guilt. The complaint also mentioned that an investigator's report contained irrelevant and false information, portraying Doe as "the biggest stoner at Emory" and stating that female students were scared of him. Doe claimed that female witnesses were treated better than male witnesses during the hearing.

District Court and Appeals Panel

In September 2022, the district court dismissed his suit, ruling that his Title IX allegations could be explained by a pro-complainant bias rather than pro-female bias. It also found that his contract-based claims failed because he didn't allege mutual agreement to the terms with Emory. The appeals panel disagreed, stating that Doe had explicitly alleged mutual assent to the sexual misconduct policy, as Emory publicly promoted it and Doe was aware of and followed it. Emory argued that it could amend the policy at any time, rendering it invalid under Georgia law. The panel, however, noted that annual changes to the policy appeared minor and were partly based on community feedback.

 Emory Sex Assault Suit : Implications of the Ruling

The court ruled that Emory's right to amend the policy did not preclude mutual assent. "We cannot conclude, based on the thin record before us, that Emory retained an absolute right to amend its policy that would render it effectively illusory," Judge Newsom wrote.

Title IX Claim Analysis

The panel rejected Doe's bid to revive his Title IX claim, stating the issues with Emory's investigation were not indicative of sex bias. Doe argued that Emory targeted men due to societal pressures to address sexual misconduct. The opinion cited a similar case, Doe v. Samford University, emphasizing that a pro-complainant bias is a lawful justification and does not necessarily indicate sex discrimination.

 Emory Sex Assault Suit : Legal Representation

John Doe is represented by Adrienne Levy of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP and Andrew Y. Coffman of Parks Chesin & Walbert PC. Emory University is represented by Joshua I. Bosin, John M. Hamrick, MacKenzie E. Gansert, and Nicholas R. Boyd of Holland & Knight LLP.

Moving Forward

Levy expressed concerns about the heightened pleading standard created by the Samford decision but affirmed their commitment to advocate for Doe and seek a fair resolution.