College Student Falsely Accused of Sexual Assault awarded Attorney's Fees

Pomona College Should pay $130,000 in Attorney fees to a former pupil accused of sexual assault for denying him a"fair hearing," that a California appeals court ruled Oct. 3.Show more

The court of appeal's view Confirmed a decision two years back that found the school accountable for ignoring its sexual misconduct coverage in denying that the accused pupil -- known as John Doe in court records -- his right to question that the student who accused him of sexual assault, known as Jane Roe in court records.

The Los Angeles Superior Court, that First heard that the litigation in October 2017, decided that the faculty's refusal was improper and"prejudicial," and asked whether the outside adjudicator (EA) who discovered the accused student accountable for sexual assault might have made the exact same decision concerning the accuser's approval needed the accuser been contested sufficiently.

The court deemed Doe eligible for Lawyer fees to frighten Pomona against denying pupils fair Title IX hearings and since the lawsuit inflicted an"important right affecting the public interest."

"We are very pleased the Court of Appeal affirmed the order for Pomona College to pay $130,000 of attorney fees incurred in overturning the college's bad Title IX decision," Doe's attorney Mark Hathaway advised The College Fix via email. "The student has graduated but Pomona College withheld his degree for a year and the student is still fighting to clear his record."

Doe had hunted $255,672.50 in the College to pay attorney fees of 127,836.25.

Doe was accused of sexual misconduct Contrary to Roe, a Pitzer student, at March 2015, as stated by the court of appeal's opinion. Upon being discovered responsible, Doe asked in April 2016 the adjudicator review the judgment and further research Roe's statements, the ruling stated.

The trial court found that, in the Re-hearing that followed, the adjudicator violated Pomona's policies, which grant the accused the right to to ask the EA to present additional questions to the accuser as a portion of continuing evaluation to submit questions to the EA to inquire the accuser in the hearing.

The appeals court wrote in its ruling the EA had refused Doe both chances.

The EA first refused Doe's petition To have investigators inquire Roe extra questions, presuming it appropriate to question her in the hearing. This was predicated on a misunderstanding of faculty policy, as stated by the appeals court verdict.

Afterward, the EA faulted Doe for never Submitting questions five times in progress since he was supposed to, and Roe chose two weeks prior to the hearing to not attend, as stated by the court of appeals ruling.

After Doe appealed the EA's judgment Against him on the grounds that he had been denied the chance to test Roe indirectly or directly, then-Dean of Students Miriam Feldblum refused his appeal, asserting the EA had behaved in accord with college policy, the court of appeals ruling stated.

Pomona contended in its appeal of this Superior Court conclusion that its coverage was misapplied since the EA misunderstood faculty policy and due to Roe's final failure to attend the hearing, a"unique set of circumstances" the faculty claimed was unlikely to occur again.

However, the appeals court judges refused This debate, writing that Pomona's activities"demonstrated an insensitivity to due process concerns that was likely to recur."

"The College's further assertion that The [EA] and the Dean of Students will not make the same mistakes twice ignores that the reason they will not is because of Doe's [lawsuit]," the judges farther composed.

Sue McCarthy, Pomona's Title IX Planner, declined to respond to queries concerning the situation, citing the Sensitivity of the procedure. TSL was Not Able to get Doe, Roe or their representatives.