Just days after a judge denied a Georgia Institute of Technology student’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt an expulsion, another student has filed a gender discrimination claim against the school.
John Doe, as he is referred to in court documents, has filed a lawsuit against the university and the same administrators who failed to follow school procedures against the other complainant.
The twist in this case is that Doe is also bisexual, and is alleging that Georgia Tech has not only a bias against male accused students, but an exceptional bias against non-straight male accused students.
The accusation stems from a sexual encounter between Doe and a student identified as John Roe. Doe’s lawsuit (obtained by the Washington Examiner) alleges the encounter was consensual, and that after the event, the accuser and accused were on friendly terms.
The accused says he ended a serious relationship with his boyfriend, and shortly after the eventual accuser asked to speak with him. The accuser picked Doe up and admitted his feelings, seeking a romantic relationship. Doe said he still wasn’t over his previous relationship and wasn’t ready for a new relationship, but didn’t completely close the door on a future relationship.
The two continued to be friendly toward one another and a few months later engaged in consensual oral sex.
The two disagree on when the alleged “non-consensual” encounter occurred. Doe believes it occurred on the weekend of April 26, but the accuser claims it happened on April 30, which would have been a Wednesday night. Doe says he was studying that night since he had a final exam the next day. Doe believes this is evidence that the accuser “fabricated a significant portion of his claim,” according to the lawsuit.
The accuser claims he and some friends went to Doe’s house, where everyone was drinking. Both he and Doe drank but neither were intoxicated. Doe claims the two discussed “hooking up again” using Facebook messages so that the other partygoers — including Doe’s ex-boyfriend — would not know they were becoming intimate.
The two came up with a plan to get away from the party to hook up. The accuser said he was sick and going to the bathroom and then Doe would follow him to make sure he was okay. The two began kissing and moved to the bedroom. Each party took off their own clothing, and then the accuser initiated oral sex on Doe, who then reciprocated.
The two fell asleep together, and woke up hours later and performed oral sex on each other once again. The accuser would later claim he had been too drunk to consent.
In the weeks and months following the encounter, the two men remained friendly toward each other. The accuser even rented the apartment next door to Doe. Doe’s lawsuit alleges that the lease must have been signed just days or weeks after the allegedly “non-consensual” encounter.
Doe left campus for the summer to compete in a marching band program, so he was unable to talk to the accuser for sometime. On one occasion during that summer, however, the accuser traveled to a location where Doe was performing, and left early to walk a mile to where the band’s buses were parked. Doe was the only member of the band the accuser knew.
The accuser would later claim this event never happened.
Later that year, the two – who were both in the band – would go on a retreat in the accuser’s hometown. Instead of staying with his parents, the accuser paid to stay at the cabin with Doe and his fellow band members. The accuser even asked Doe to ride in his car when they took a trip to a waterfall an hour away, according to the lawsuit.
Photos from the event show the two hanging out together and having fun. At some point during the retreat, the accuser again asked about a romantic relationship, but this time Doe said he was not interested. Months later, the accuser would send Doe a Facebook message asking to cuddle. Doe again rebuffed his advances.
The accuser would later ask Doe to delete all their Facebook messages, and Doe complied, which removed the evidence of their relationship once the accusation was made. The accuser provided edited versions of the conversation to make it look like Doe was admitting to sexual assault. Doe was unable to restore the messages, as Facebook requires a subpoena to access such messages.
Nearly one year after the party where the two engaged in oral sex for a second time, the accuser filed a report of sexual assault with Georgia Tech. The school follows a single-investigator model, and Peter Paquette (you may remember his name from the previous Georgia Tech lawsuit), was the one behind this investigation. Paquette did not advise Doe of his rights or the Georgia Tech policy and only interviewed witnesses suggested by the accuser. None of the interviews were taped or transcribed, so Doe had no way to accurately respond to the claims against him.
Further, most of the witnesses interviewed by Paquette described the accuser after the event, and not the actual event itself. Doe was given just one-hour to review a 13-page, single-spaced summary of Paquette’s investigation.
Paquette apparently interviewed the accuser twice in order to get his response to Doe’s statements and provided the accuser with ample time to respond. Paquette also accepted the heavily edited Facebook messages from the accuser (although, to be fair, it’s not like Doe had the actual Facebook messages to prove the accuser was lying). The accuser’s story also changed throughout the investigation, and Paquette appeared to disregard the suggestion that the accuser only filed the claim as retaliation against Doe for rebuffing him.
Paquette acknowledged that “both the victim and the respondent provide[d] accounts that are reasonable to believe.” Notice the use of “victim” to describe the accuser. Paquette also believed that, given the nonverbal actions of the accuser on the night in question, Doe had reason to believe “he had consent.”
Yet despite this, Paquette determined Doe had sexually assaulted the accuser and ordered his expulsion.
Doe appealed the decisions, and the Appellate Committee overturned Paquette’s decision. The accuser’s parents, however, filed an appeal of this decision with Georgia Tech’s president, even though school policy says the appeal must be prepared and filed by the student. The appeal was also filed the day after the deadline.
The president overturned the appeal, upholding Paquette’s initial finding.
Doe then appealed to the school’s Board of Regents, saying the president misstated school policy in his decision and hadn’t even reviewed the investigative material. The board vacated the president’s decision and returned the case to Georgia Tech, but didn’t explain its decision or instruct the school on how to proceed. Doe tried to ask the board for more information, but they didn’t respond.
Despite the multiple appeals and overturns, Doe’s expulsion was in effect. His fate was now once again in the hands of the same appellate committee that initially overturned his expulsion. Except this time, the school’s president directed the committee to find Doe responsible, and they complied.
So Doe sued, alleging gender-bias and that the school failed to adhere to its own guidelines. Claims of sexual assault were supposed to be brought no later than 30 business days after the incident, yet Paquette allowed the accuser to bring a claim nearly one year after the encounter. The school also allowed the accuser’s parents to file an appeal on his behalf a day after the deadline to submit an appeal.
Doe’s lawsuit points out that Georgia Tech must know that its procedures are flawed, because the school created an advisory group to assess the sexual misconduct procedures. The advisory group was created the same month the Board of Regents reviewed Doe’s case.
As with other lawsuits of this nature, Doe faces an uphill battle.
The Washington Examiner reached out to Georgia Tech via phone and email but has not heard back, due to the school being closed for winter break. Schools are often unable to comment on ongoing cases.
