Her lawsuit may never be argued in court, but that’s not silenced the University of Virginia alumna who claims a professor sexually assaulted her and the school subsequently proceeded to slow-walk its investigation into the matter.
“I want the parents of young women and girls attending or considering attending the University of Virginia to know what they are getting into,” she told The Daily Progress. “They are sending their daughters to an institution that not only creates an environment that makes it permissible for a male professor over 40 years their senior to groom, sexually assault, and abuse them — but will also brutally punish them for seeking justice.”
In the lawsuit filed in April 2023, the 20-something alumna, referred to only as Jane Doe, claims the school’s Title IX Office neglected to provide a timely investigation after she accused her professor, referred to only as John Roe, of sexual abuse and harassment in clear violation of UVa policy which “strictly prohibits” sexual or romantic relationships between professors and undergraduate students.
In addition to forcing her to relive her abuse, she says the Title IX team — required by federal law to promptly investigate reports of sexual discrimination, harassment and abuse — dragged its feet. Despite a 60-day baseline for investigations, her case took more than eight times that long. The prolonged ordeal did not end until after she had graduated, allowing the accused professor to finish teaching his courses and resign without repercussion.
UVa, which was represented by the Office of the Virginia Attorney General, never challenged the claims of abuse. The school instead told the court that it “responded to these disturbing allegations in a manner consistent with federal and state law, as well as our own policies.”
On Nov. 14, Judge Robert S. Ballou granted UVa’s motion for summary judgement and dismissed the case, ruling that Doe failed to meet key standards required by law.
Speaking with The Daily Progress, Doe, who has asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution, revealed new details about what occurred behind closed doors over the course of several months before Ballou rendered his decision.
Not only does she claim the university used “intimidation tactics” to get her to back down, but court records she provided to the The Daily Progress show that the UVa professor she accused of assaulting her had at least one other relationship with a student and failed to keep up to date on his Title IX training.
While the accused professor was being deposed, he admitted to having a sexual relationship in 2010 with a different student after she left his class.
“How long did that relationship last?” the plaintiff’s attorney, Liz Abdnour, asked the professor, according to a record of his deposition.
“I want to say a year, year and a half,” he responded.
“What was that student’s name?” asked Abdnour, despite objections from UVa counsel.
“Her first name was …” Roe started. “Her last name was …”
He was unable to remember the name.
“It was many years ago,” he concluded. “I honestly cannot recall for you exactly her last name.”
Approached by The Daily Progress, UVa declined to comment on the professor’s admission.
The university also declined to respond to Daily Progress inquiries regarding evidence that the former professor failed to complete mandatory Title IX training.
During discovery, UVa was unable to provide any documentation that the former professor completed the “Preventing and Addressing Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation” training required of faculty every two years.
Roe was not the only one without proof he had completed the training. History professor Asher Biemann also had no evidence he had completed the training. Biemann is not only the first person the former student confided in about the relationship, but Biemann also admitted to witnessing his colleague’s “inappropriate behavior” firsthand while the three were in a study abroad program in 2018.
The last time Roe completed the training, according to court records, was March 28, 2021 — two years after his relationship with Doe ended and less than four months before he resigned from his post. As for Biemann’s training, UVa said the “search for responsive records is ongoing.”
But it wasn’t just what the discovery process uncovered that disturbed Doe; it was how it was conducted.
The depositions performed before the case was dismissed were largely conducted via Zoom, since those involved in the case are scattered across the commonwealth and the country. While Doe was not required to participate in the hearings, Abdnour told The Daily Progress she prefers her clients listen in, with their cameras and microphones off, so they “can provide me with valuable information in a deposition.”
UVa’s attorneys, however, pushed for Doe to turn on her camera during the deposition of Emily Babb, the university Title IX coordinator who was named as a defendant in Doe’s original complaint.
On the grounds that she might be secretly recording the hearing and so “we can read her body language,” UVa counsel successfully demanded Doe be on camera for the remaining depositions despite concerns raised by Abdnour that it would be “an extremely traumatic process for Ms. Doe.”
It was only more traumatic when UVa counsel demanded she also appear on camera during the deposition of the professor she says assaulted her, Abdnour said.
One UVa attorney “rolled her eyes and scoffed” when Abdnour told them how traumatic it would be to have a victim face their assailant on camera.
Abdnour described the entire exchange as “the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard of,” saying that assessing someone’s credibility based on their physical reactions to a deposition is pointless anyway as it cannot be submitted as evidence.
“I’ve never had an attorney insist on that before, especially with a survivor of abuse,” she said.
Doe also claims that UVa shared “intimate medical information” with an individual she described as a stalker whom she has filed charges against. The disclosure of information was in violation of a protective order that both parties agreed upon in May, which determined “that certain documents and information produced during discovery in this litigation should be kept confidential to protect confidential and sensitive academic, medical, and personal information.”
UVa also subpoenaed all of Doe’s previous employers, she told The Daily Progress, “effectively damaging my image with them when they are well aware that I am struggling to get my career back on track and need employment references.”
“There was no coherent reason to do any of this, other than to further hurt and intimidate me to try to make me drop this case,” she said.
Doe’s lawsuit does not only allege that UVa acted with “deliberate indifference” while investigating her claims — taking 493 days to complete an investigation meant to only last 60 — but that the university failed to “implement adequate remedial measures” against the professor. Despite the Title IX office investigation finding that the professor in fact “repeatedly harassed and assaulted” Doe on at least five occasions between December 2018 and February 2019, the professor was allowed to resign. Three months after his resignation, then-Provost Liz Magill prohibited him from ever applying for another university position and denied him honorary emeritus status.
Magill’s action was sufficient in the judge’s opinion, as this is the “most severe sanction available through the Title IX process,” according to a brief filed by UVa counsel.
“Given UVA’s response to investigate and adjudicate the reported misconduct by Roe and to put in place a directive that prohibited Roe from contacting Plaintiff, it cannot be said that UVA’s response was clearly unreasonable,” reads the brief.
Likewise, Doe was unable to provide sufficient evidence to meet the standards to prove “deliberate indifference.”
“It is a very high bar, and it keeps getting higher,” Abdnour said. “That’s partly what happened here. Cases keep getting decided that narrow and narrow and narrow the scope of what deliberate indifference entails for plaintiffs.”
In his 17-page opinion, Judge Ballou — who received both his undergraduate and law degree from UVa and is currently a lecturer at the university’s law school — determined that Doe’s evidence was unable to show that UVa’s delayed response met either of the two thresholds to prove a violation of the law.
First, a person can claim deliberate indifference by maintaining that the Title IX Office’s investigation “prejudiced the plaintiff.” UVa argued, and Ballou agreed, that because Doe was still able to graduate on time with a grade point average of 3.8, there was no evidence of prejudice.
“Deliberate indifference” can also be proven by demonstrating a defendant intentionally acted in a manner to sabotage the plaintiff’s complaint or its resolution.
“There is no dispute that UVA’s investigation was delayed … however, delay alone does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference,” Ballou said in his opinion. The judge said there is evidence that Title IX investigators were actively working the case in some capacity throughout the entire 493-day investigation. “At most, it demonstrates a lack of efficiency, which does not alone constitute deliberate indifference.”
According to Abdnour, such stringent requirements make it difficult for victims to successfully claim anyone has ever violated Title IX, a law meant to prohibit sex discrimination in educational settings, even if investigations find the accused guilty.
“The law is structured entirely against victims,” Abdnour said. “It is almost impossible with the state of the law right now for somebody with a Title IX claim to succeed and to be awarded any damages.”
The uphill battle victims of sexual violence face only got steeper after an April 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision which determined that those who experience discrimination cannot claim damages for emotional distress perpetrated by organizations that receive federal financial aid, including state educational institutions.
“UVa is taking advantage of a new Supreme Court case, a very draconian Supreme Court case, that guts victims’ rights,” Doe told The Daily Progress in June. “That makes it very hard for me, or impossible for me, to claim emotional damages anymore, even though UVa has left me with a lot of trauma. I was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, PTSD and an eating disorder after all of this went down, but I won’t be able to go to court for those.”
Because Ballou dismissed the case with prejudice, it is permanently barred from being refiled in the same court. Doe could appeal to a higher court, but for now, Abdnour said, they are “considering all our options.”
Source: www.dailyprogress.com
Be First to Comment