Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Court: Expelled male student can proceed on key claims against Johnson & Wales U

    Court: Expelled male student can proceed on key claims against Johnson & Wales U

    Kafkaesque case in which female waited a year to complain, male not given copy of complaint, entire process only 5 weeks, no record of hearing

    https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/996086089109639175

    In January 2018, I wrote about a lawsuit by an expelled male student that alleged an outrageous denial of fundamental fairness and failure to follow university rules, Kafkaesque campus sexual assault tribunal at Johnson & Wales alleged in lawsuit:

    A male student expelled from Johnson & Wales University in Providence, RI, has commenced suit in federal court in Massachusetts, where he lives, claiming he was unlawfully held responsible and expelled after an unfair, prejudged internal judicial process that violated not only ordinary norms of fairness, but also the university’s own guidelines.

    The facts alleged and issued involved are all too familiar for these type of cases, according to the detailed factual allegations:

    • The male and female students had at least six sexual encounters, only two of which were at issue.
    • The female did not complain for one year.
    • The complaint was instigated by the female’s boyfriend, but the boyfriend could not be cross-examined because he served as the female student’s hearing advisor.
    • The accused male student was not given a copy of the complaint, he only had it read to him not long before the hearing.
    • The investigator who gathered the facts expressed support for the female student from the start.
    • The entire process from complaint to adjudication took only five weeks.
    • There was a short time to appeal, during which time the male student retained counsel, but the university would not provide the attorney with a copy of the complaint.
    • There was no record of the adjudication, making internal appeal and court challenge difficult

    The lawsuit was transferred to the District of Rhode Island on the motion of the university. The university also filed a motion to partially dismiss the suit.

    A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 14, 2018. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on the critical allegation that the university violated Title IX by discriminating against a man in the disciplinary process. The court docket reflects the ruling, which was made from the bench just after oral argument:

    TEXT ORDER For reasons state in today’s hearing, 26 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted in part and denied in part as follows: The motion as to Count 3 is granted as to promissory estoppel, as to Count 4 is denied as to Title IX; as to Count 5 is granted as to intentional infliction of emotional distress; as to Count 6 is denied as to negligent inflection of emotion distress, and as to Count 7 is granted as to injunctive relief as a separate cause of action. – So Ordered by District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 5/14/2018. (McGuire, Vickie) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

    The bland docket entry, however, appears not to give the full flavor of just how badly the argument and ruling went for the university.

    There is no transcript of the judge’s ruling currently available, but Prof. K.C. Johnson was at the courthouse and tweeted the highlights:

    [Featured Image: U.S. District Court, Providence, RI, via K.C. Johnson Twitter]

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     21
    hrhdhd | May 15, 2018 at 7:52 am

    To call these Title IX fiascos “kangaroo courts” would be an insult to kangaroos.


       
       0 
       
       4
      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to hrhdhd. | May 15, 2018 at 11:13 am

      Touche!

      The general public needs to understand however, that it is the typical college administration’s “standard operating procedures” today.

      Good grief they do all they could to interfer with the election process in 2016!!!!!


       
       0 
       
       0
      JohnSmith100 in reply to hrhdhd. | May 15, 2018 at 6:50 pm

      A website which serves are a searchable comprehensive source of data on which universities should be avoided by men. When I was young, I went to Michigan Tech, where there were no women enrolled. So local girls received lots of attention. One friend knocked up a local, dropped out and started a business in his garage. He became a millionaire.
      He was always complaining about how dumb his wife was, ignoring the fact that he made a really dumb mistake. He died from brain cancer around 50 years old, and she had all that money. Life, and death is full of irony.


         
         0 
         
         0
        4fun in reply to JohnSmith100. | May 15, 2018 at 8:09 pm

        My aunt rented out what she called her farm to Tech students. It was on the canal right where it opened up a bit into what most would call a lake.
        Beautiful country around Hancock/Houghton.


     
     0 
     
     14
    kenoshamarge | May 15, 2018 at 8:09 am

    Once I wouldn’t have believed that such things could happen in our country. Now they are common. What surprises me is a judge that actually isn’t willing to be a part of the lynch mob.


     
     0 
     
     9
    PODKen | May 15, 2018 at 8:34 am

    I hope the kid rakes the University over the coals.


     
     0 
     
     5
    Albigensian | May 15, 2018 at 10:21 am

    “Is it possible that these leftists do not have a clue as to how to investigate a claim or conduct due process?”

    But if you’ve convinced yourself you already know The Truth, why would you bother with due process?

    There’s a heady mix here of emotion trumping reason (“Why OF COURSE I believe the victim!”) combined with Kafkaesque theories that start and end by presuming guilt, and all wrapped up within a power structure that’s determined to make itself immune to all criticism (i.e., by asserting that any criticism can only reflect badly on the critic and never on the criticized).

    Why would you search for the truth if you’re already convinced that you (and your colleagues) already possess it?


     
     0 
     
     2
    Ugnug | May 15, 2018 at 10:29 am

    What is most telling, the judge an Obama nominee, was so convinced of the merits of the case that he ruled from the bench. The writer KC Johnson above indicates it was essentially a smackdown of Johnson & Wales staff and their lawyers. I would have paid money to see their faces in court and now they have to break the news to the school’s president. Hope they are wearing Depends.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend