In the fall of 2024, Plaintiff John Doe (“Johnny”), then a student at Virginia Tech (“VT” or “the university”) and member of its Corps of Cadets, was accused by two female students of sexual assault.
Johnny’s first accuser, Pauline Poe, with whom he previously had at least two consensual sexual encounters, claimed that Johnny had continued to engage in sexual intercourse with her after she withdrew consent. A couple weeks later, Jane Roe, a fellow member of the Corps of Cadets, complained that Johnny, with whom she had previously been intimate, had sex with her after a night of heavy (underage) drinking. Jane, who claimed to have no memory of this encounter, later alleged that it amounted to sexual assault on Johnny’s part because she was incapacitated.
After receiving these two complaints, VT officials sprang into action. The same day that Jane reported Johnny to VT’s Title IX office—over five weeks after their allegedly non-consensual encounter—the university issued a campus-wide alert about the purported sexual assault. VT’s email did not identify Johnny or Jane by name, but it provided the specific location of the alleged incident and noted that the parties involved knew each other. Although no one from the Title IX office had yet to investigate Jane’s claims—let alone get Johnny’s side of the story—the campus-wide email characterized him as “the offender” and Jane as “the survivor.” The following day, a VT official placed Johnny on interim suspension, which resulted in his being evicted from his dorm room, pending the outcome of separate Title IX and student-conduct investigations.
VT officials investigated Pauline’s and Jane’s claims over the next six months. Johnny, who vehemently denied sexually assaulting anyone, maintained his innocence throughout the process, and he desperately tried to present abundant evidence that he claimed substantially undermined his accusers’ claims and their credibility.
As to Pauline Poe, Johnny pointed out—to the investigator, to the hearing officers, and to anyone else who might listen—that her roommate (whom Pauline had initially claimed would confirm her account) largely refuted it. Johnny also noted that a local judge, who denied Pauline’s request for a permanent protective order against Johnny, characterized key aspects of her account as “extremely unique, if not bizarre.”
Johnny also alleged that Pauline withheld—and even doctored—various text messages they had exchanged the night of the alleged assault. He also claimed that Pauline omitted a critical detail of her later accounts to VT investigators—specifically, her allegation that Johnny had threatened her with a knife before they had sex—when she initially reported the encounter to local police.
Finally, Johnny presented a report from a forensic nurse who examined a photograph that Pauline gave to VT investigators. According to Pauline, this photograph depicted a bruise that she suffered during their non-consensual encounter. The forensic nurse, however, opined that it depicted no such thing.
Regarding Jane Roe’s sexual-assault claim, Johnny alleges that he presented substantial evidence that disproved her account. He pointed out that Jane had initially waited more than five weeks to report him to VT’s Title IX officials, and that she only did so then to receive immunity from a charge of underage drinking that stemmed from her imbibing on the night of the alleged assault. According to Johnny, this underage-drinking charge was Jane’s second serious disciplinary infraction while a member of the Corps of Cadets, and a conviction could have resulted in Jane losing her ROTC scholarship.
Although Jane later downplayed her disciplinary exposure for underage drinking, she filed her Title IX complaint against Johnny the day before she was scheduled to stand trial on that charge (and, according to Johnny, shortly after she had discussed matters with Pauline). As soon as Jane accused Johnny of sexual assault, VT granted her immunity for underage drinking and the disciplinary proceeding that may have resulted in the loss of her scholarship was dropped.
What’s more, Johnny marshalled considerable evidence to refute the notion that Jane was incapacitated—the required mental state for a victim of sexual assault under these circumstances based on VT’s policies—when they had sex. He presented detailed written testimony from a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who regularly advises the accrediting body for university Title IX investigators.
In her report, this expert, who examined the record evidence, explained that, although Jane was likely intoxicated at the time she had sex with Johnny, Jane had not—based on her own account of the night in question, the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses who interacted with her at the time, and other evidence—exhibited any signs incapacitation. Specifically, the psychologist noted that, just prior to climbing into her bed with Johnny, Jane had walked another student back to his dorm, sent several coherent text messages, cleaned up after another student who had become ill from drinking, and changed her clothes.
Johnny also pointed VT investigators to Jane’s conduct towards him in the days and weeks following this alleged sexual assault. Not only did she wait over five weeks to accuse him, but, in the interim, she sent Johnny several friendly text messages, including one in which Jane described herself as his “sugar baby,” and another in which she asked to travel with him over the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. And three weeks after the alleged sexual assault (but before she had accused him of it), Jane had Johnny back over to her dorm room for another night of underage drinking.
Johnny’s efforts to disprove these accusations ultimately proved futile. The VT officials who investigated both incidents allegedly gave short shrift to this exculpatory and impeachment evidence and ultimately substantiated Pauline’s and Jane’s claims of sexual assault. They submitted their written findings to disciplinary tribunals for formal adjudication. Although Johnny claims that he attempted to present this same exculpatory evidence at the ensuing hearings, his defense largely fell on deaf ears.
The hearing officers, applying preponderance-of-the-evidence standards, ultimately concluded that it was more likely than not that Johnny had sexually assaulted Pauline and Jane. Based on their determination in Jane’s case, the hearing officers recommended that Johnny be expelled from VT. Johnny appealed those decisions, but his appeals were summarily denied. Consistent with Virginia law, once the expulsion was considered final, VT officials placed a notation on his official transcript indicating, for posterity, that he had been expelled for committing sexual assault.
According to Johnny, all of this was preordained given the deep-seated anti-male bias of the VT officials who investigated and adjudicated Pauline’s and Jane’s sexual-assault claims, as well as inherent anti-male bias in VT’s Title IX policies, the combination of which made it nearly impossible for him to defend against false accusations of sexual assault. Johnny contends that by imposing arbitrary, inconsistent, and shifting standards for evaluating the sexual-assault claims, denying him a meaningful opportunity to confront and cross-examine his accusers at those hearings, and effectively ignoring substantial evidence that largely refuted the purported victims’ accounts, VT and its officials violated his rights under the Constitution and federal anti-discrimination law, specifically Title IX….
The defendants correctly point out that the constitutional rights Johnny alleges VT administrators violated were not clearly established by United States Supreme Court or Fourth Circuit precedent at the time his investigations occurred. As such, the doctrine of qualified immunity unquestionably bars his claims against these individual defendants for money damages.
But that does not end the inquiry—far from it. Johnny has alleged abundant facts that, if true, raise grave concerns about the way VT, through these administrators, conducted the investigations of Pauline’s and Jane’s sexual-assault claims, as well as the ultimate outcomes of those inquiries. Simply put, Johnny has alleged facts that, if true, raise a plausible inference that VT discriminated against him in these investigations because he is male and, in so doing, violated Title IX. Accordingly, Johnny’s claims against the university will be allowed to proceed, as well as a single official-capacity claim against one of the administrator defendants.
