Syracuse University filed a response Monday to a federal lawsuit from a former SU student who claims the university led an “inadequate and biased” Title IX investigation into a sexual assault complaint.

The plaintiff, referred to as John Doe, alleges in the November lawsuit that SU violated seven Title IX guidelines and showed extreme gender bias during the investigation because Doe was male, according to court documents.

Chancellor Kent Syverud is one of four university officials listed as defendants in the lawsuit. Also listed is Assistant Dean of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Pamela Peter, who served as assistant dean and director of the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities at the time of the investigation.

SU submitted a request to dismiss all claims from Doe and present an oral argument in court. Doe did not have evidence that SU intentionally discriminated against him during the investigation based on his gender, the university’s response states.

Doe was expelled due to a sexual assault complaint from Jane Roe, whose name was redacted during the investigation.

The complaint was filed after a joint party between SU’s Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority on April 22, 2017. Both students reported not remembering much from the party, court documents show.

Roe reported a sexual assault on April 24, 2017 while at Crouse Hospital. She received a Sexual Assault Nurse Examination at the hospital and later began remembering parts of the night after meeting with a therapist, according to the lawsuit.

The Syracuse Police Department and the District Attorney’s office said there was no credible evidence of a sexual assault.

Doe states in the lawsuit that Roe’s allegation was false and the university’s investigation was “a sham with a predetermined outcome.” Doe is suing for emotional, mental and economic harm.

The university “erred” in its credibility assessments as it found Doe implausible and “disregarded and explained away fatal inconsistencies” in Roe’s statements, the lawsuit states.

SU’s response states that investigators found that Doe appeared credible in his witness statement and had no apparent bias as he recalled events. The university states that this was “hardly the credibility assessment of an investigator who had prejudged Doe’s culpability.”

An investigator assessed Roe’s credibility in nearly four pages of the report and included contradictions between her statements and evidence from the investigation, the university’s response states.

“Doe’s claim is that the University should have believed him over Roe,” SU said in its response. “Yet Doe insisted he had no recollection of the key events at issue, and Doe had no meaningful response to the evidence on which the Conduct Board relied, most principally the SANE examination.”

Doe also alleges that the university presumed his guilt from the beginning of the investigation. Doe’s lawyers, Seth Zuckerman and Priya Chaudhry of ChaudhryLaw PLLC, said in an emailed statement that SU is a “serial offender” of violating the due process rights of male students.

“The school has a predetermined outcome that every male accused of sexual assault is guilty,” the statement read. “Here, Syracuse ignored the district attorney and police department’s finding that no sexual assault occurred.”

SU’s response states that the University Conduct Board only used factual evidence, including surveillance footage, witness statements and the Sexual Assault Nurse Examination report to decipher the events of the night that Doe could not remember himself.

“In doing so, the Board in no way presumed guilt or ignored the applicable standard of proof,” the response states.

Pursuant with SU policy, the university does not comment on pending litigation, said Sarah Scalese, senior associate vice president for university communications, in an emailed statement.

— Special Projects Editor Sam Ogozalek contributed reporting to this article.

Published on February 11, 2020 at 10:40 pm

Contact Maggie: mehicks@syr.edu | @maggie_hickss