2nd College Student Charged With Rape Sues - Columbia // Males Suing Private Universities, Others

May 21, 2014 - PRLog -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 21, 2014):  In the wake of a recent Pennsylvania federal court ruling that male students who were unfairly tried in judicial tribunals for date rape can sue their university, a second such student - this time at Columbia - has hit back by suing his university in federal court for a wide variety of alleged harms and attorney fees, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

        Since the Pennsylvania federal court held that the female complainant could be sued for defamation (slander), and that her statements were not necessarily legally privileged, it is likely that some male Columbia students on the lists of alleged "sexual assault violators" and "rapists on campus," which have been posted anonymously on walls and in bathrooms at Columbia in recent weeks, will likewise sue those who posted them for defamation - with their lawyers using pre-trial discovery investigatory tools to learn the names of the perpetrators, suggests Banzhaf.

        With so much attention focused on the alleged failures of many universities to forcefully prosecute male students accused of date rape or sexual assault, it's interesting to see that the other side of the coin - the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused, and/or are overzealous because of pressure from female students, the federal government, or otherwise - is now receiving some legal attention.

        The Columbia event is a classic 'he said, she said' case, notes Banzhaf, where she claims she didn't consent to sex, and he claims that she not only agreed but was actually the instigator.

        He claims in this federal suit that Columbia tried to make an example out of his case, and succumbed to pressure from student activists in finding him guilty.

        For example some 23 students reportedly have filed federal complaints against Columbia University for allegedly failing to protect women from sexual assaults, and almost 100  faculty members sent a letter asking for a strengthening of the university's sexual assault policies.

        The male student at Columbia claims that the female student waited 5 months, during which there were no allegations of any wrongdoing, to finally file a complaint against him.

        Indeed, he also said that a few days after the incident, the complainant sent a text message to the accused expressing concern about the "social impact" if their sexual activity became known to their mutual friends.

        She subsequently allegedly expressed additional doubts about possible repercussions several weeks later - all apparently suggesting that the sex was consensual rather than rape.

        His complaint alleges that he was "deprived of the most basic due process and equal protection rights and was discriminated against on the basis of his male sex. . . .  In essence, there was a rush to judgment, pandering to the political climate on campus and pressure from wom[e]n’s groups, with little thought, if any, given the actual specifics.”

        The Pennsylvania ruling gave those wrongly convicted a powerful new weapon - they can sue the university, the employees who participated in the proceedings, and even the accused herself in federal court for substantial monetary damages and other remedies, notes Prof. Banzhaf, who was twice called a “radical feminist,” and has won about 100 cases of sex discrimination against women.

        After a school tribunal at Saint Joseph's University in Pennsylvania found a male student to have committed sexual assault arising out of an incident of allegedly consensual sexual intercourse, he went on the offensive and took legal action, says Banzhaf.

        The federal court held that he was entitled to sue the private university under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and that he could also sue the university, university employees, and the female complainant for defamation (slander), with the court holding that their accusatory statements about him were not legally privileged.

        Interestingly, the court said that he could also sue the female complainant for intentionally interfering with his contractual relations with the school; an important ruling, suggests Banzhaf, because for such an intentional tort the male student can seek much higher punitive damages in addition to general damages.

        Also, the court ruled that the mere fact that the tribunal found that the male student had committed the wrongful act complained of was not conclusive as to his guilt or innocence, and did not shield the female complainant from this type of legal liability.

        Several additional claims by the plaintiff were not accepted by the court on the basis of the complaint which had been filed, but the court said that the male student was not precluded from bringing up these claims again, provided they were more properly pleaded.

        These legal claims included, said Banzhaf: breach of contract, violation of Title IX (discrimination against him by the school on the basis of his gender), negligence, making public statements which place him in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (which might also warrant punitive damages).

        "Female university students in 'he said, she said' rape and sexual assault cases, who were dissatisfied with the way the school handled the situation, are increasingly seeking legal remedies.

        But now men who feel that the pendulum has swung too far, or that they were not treated fairly in school judicial proceedings, suddenly also have powerful legal weapons on their side," he said.
.
        Also, says Banzhaf, it is likely that some attorneys will take these cases on a contingency fee basis, so that both rich and poor students can go after the universities, their faculty and staff,  and any women who improperly accuse them.

        Female students, knowing that they may have to repeat their allegations under oath in open court, may think carefully before bringing any unfounded charges, he predicts.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ @profbanzhaf