penn state old main.jpg

(The Patriot-News, file)

WILLIAMSPORT -- Two Penn State fraternity brothers no longer are facing two-semester suspensions in a sexual misconduct case.

The university Monday informed U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W. Brann it was withdrawing the suspensions for the two identified only as John Doe I and II and expunging their records.

As a result, the continuation of an injunction hearing scheduled Tuesday has been canceled as moot.

Penn State said it will be using a revised procedure in sexual misconduct cases and it will be applied to the entire student body.

The Does will be afforded the opportunity before a new decision panel to contest the allegations against them, the university says in a court document.

Penn State says the new process will address many of the concerns presented in the litigation, including the accused having the opportunity to appear before the Title IX decision panel to suggest questions to be asked of other parties.

The accused also would have the ability to observe potential interaction between the complainant and the panel and supplement the investigative packet with new, relevant information.

The Alpha Chi Rho fraternity brothers sued the university, President Eric Barron and Daniel Shaha, senior director of student conduct, after they were found to have violated the school's Code of Conduct. They claimed the investigative model used to reach that conclusion violated their due process rights because they could not confront their accuser.

Brann in October had issued a preliminary injunction preventing Penn State from the enforcing the suspension. The hearing, which began March 18, was whether to make the injunction permanent.

The investigative model, as described during the March hearing, employs an investigator who interviews the accused, accuser and others and then prepares a packet of information for a three-person panel that decides if a violation occurred.

Cross-examination is done in the form of questions to the investigator, but the accused may have an adviser and object to the information given the panel.

The panel is not given the names of the accused or accuser so there is no bias, Shaha had testified.

The investigative model is being adopted by colleges across the country and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights recommends it, he said.

Brann wrote in his order dismissing the injunction motions that it is his view the university has adequately shown a willingness to not only depart from its policies in material ways but to do so in an expedient fashion.

The judge pointed out the revised policy has mooted only the need for emergency injunctive relief, not the underlying case that seeks a declaration the Does' constitutional rights were violated and also monetary damages.

The Does were found to have violated the Code of Conduct by engaging in non-consensual oral sex and sexual misconduct involving an incapacitated individual.

They and two other fraternity brothers claim they were in the basement of the fraternity house early on Dec. 5, 2014, listening to music when a woman suggested a "fivesome" and performed oral sex on them.

The woman's sister reported the incident to State College police, but following an investigation, no charges were filed. The woman claimed she was too drunk to consent to the sexual activity, but the two Does dispute that, claiming she acted normal.

They contend the woman made a complaint because she was upset when denied access to a fraternity formal a week later because her date was not a member of Alpha Chi Rho.