Doe's case, like others, alleges that the pressure placed upon universities by the Office of Civil Rights created a "backlash" against male students accused of sexual offenses.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal judge is allowing to proceed a lawsuit accusing Brown University of gender-bias in its handling of a sexual assault investigation against a male student suspended by the Ivy League school following a probe.

U.S. District Chief Judge William E. Smith declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former student, identified as John Doe, who alleges that Brown violated his rights and discriminated against him based on his gender in its handling of an alleged sexual misconduct complaint.

Doe filed suit in April after being suspended from Brown for 2½ years based on sexual misconduct allegations brought by a female student that he had fondled and kissed after meeting her at a dormitory party in October 2014. Doe was enrolled in the Class of 2017, earned straight A’s his freshman year, and hoped to pursue a career in neuroscience, the lawsuit says.

The case is among a wave throughout the nation as alleged campus sexual assaults and the manner in which they are investigated receive increasing scrutiny. They are meeting with mixed results in the courts.

In ruling, Smith traced the origin of such cases, noting that they arose in the aftermath of a 2011 letter from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights directing schools to "promptly investigate" any allegation of sexual harassment or assault when they know or "reasonably should know" of, regardless whether a student lodges a complaint. The letter requires schools to employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, meaning it was more likely than not the allegations occurred.

Doe's case, like others, alleges that the pressure placed upon universities created a "backlash" against male students accused of sexual offenses. The cases assert that the OCR "holds the specter of loss of federal funds as a sword over the universities’ heads in the event it were to find that the university failed to comply with Title IX," Smith wrote.

Title IX bars discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal money. It has typically been used to safeguard female students’ rights, as in the landmark 1992 sex-discrimination case at Brown in which several female athletes sued after funding for their gymnastics team was cut. As a result, the university was forced to restore financing to the women’s gymnastics and volleyball teams.

"Taking the facts in Doe’s complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Brown ignored exculpatory evidence, including the victim’s own testimony in the Oct. 18 complaint that she had in fact articulated consent," Smith wrote. Doe has created a "reasonable expectation" that if the case is allowed to proceed to trial that discovery may yield evidence that Brown shows a bias toward female students in alleged sexual misconduct cases. Smith also let stand Doe's accusations that Brown had breached its contract with him under student conduct procedures.

Doe's lawyer, Andrew T. Miltenberg, praised the ruling. “Up until now, courts have misapplied the legal standards or otherwise refused to acknowledge the very serious ramifications that sexual assault allegations have on the accused ...," Miltenberg said in an email. He credited Smith's ruling as "groundbreaking" in that it recognizes that it would be nearly impossible to produce evidence that female students accused of sexual assault were treated differently so early in the case. "We expect this decision to have a significant impact on the manner in which courts view Title IX cases."

Smith's order is being reviewed at Brown, spokeswoman Cass Cliatt said. "The decision appears to reflect the court’s interest in hearing the arguments of the parties, which is understandable in light of the national discussions regarding these issues," she said in an email. "We believe that Brown has a strong case to present to the court when this matter goes to trial."

Doe has decided not to move forward with a slander suit brought against his accuser.

—kmulvane@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7417

On Twitter: @kmulvane

Read Judge William Smith's ruling (pdf)