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.
