CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO.

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ONANDAGA
-------------------------------------------------------------X

In the Matter of the Application of

Index No.: ___________/2020
JOHN DOE, RJI No. ___________
Petitioner,

FOR A JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78

OF THE CPLR
VERIFIED PETITION
-against-

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY,

Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
Petitioner John Doe respectfully alleges, on personal knowledge and upon information and

belief, through his attorney Michael Thad Allen, the following:

1. John Doe brings this special proceeding against Respondent Syracuse University

(“Syracuse”) pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR asking this Court to vacate Syracuse’s decisions

finding John Doe responsible for sexual misconduct. Syracuse investigated and adjudicated the claims

against John Doe in a manner that violated its own policies and was arbitrary and capricious, resulting

in a retroactive expulsion imposed on June 24, 2020, over a full year after he had completed all his

classes and was qualified to graduate. The post hoc expulsion serves no pedagogical or other purpose.

Its only purpose was to strip John Doe of his education, confiscate his entire tuition, and arbitrarily

deprive him of his degree.

2. The penalty of expulsion imposed by Syracuse was an abuse of discretion.

I. PARTIES

3. John Doe (“Doe”) is a resident of Brewster, New York.

4. Syracuse is a university located in Syracuse, New York.

1

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 1 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

II. FACTS

5. This case stems from a snowballing and increasingly implausible series of complaints

of “sexual misconduct” filed against John Doe after an alleged sexual encounter with another male

student. John Doe maintains this encounter was fully consensual. Yet once rumors of this incident

spread through the Syracuse hockey team, on which John Doe played as a starting lineman,

members of his team began to accuse him of “sexual assault” and he became the target of vengeful,

mob-like behavior by the hockey team, which was strongly homophobic.

6. At all relevant times, Doe was enrolled as an undergraduate student in Syracuse’s

School of Education, majoring in Health and Exercise Science. Doe was expected to graduate in

May 14, 2019.

7. At all relevant times, Doe was a member of Syracuse’s Men’s Club Hockey Team.

A. The March 2019 Allegations

8. On the evening of Saturday, March 2, 2019, John Doe attended a hockey team party

at the Clarendon Street Hockey House, which proceeded to Harry’s Bar, a local establishment

frequented by Syracuse hockey players.

9. Following the gathering at Harry’s Bar, in the early hours of Sunday, March 3, 2019,

W.D. – who did the hockey team’s digital media but was not a team member himself –

accompanied Doe back to his off-campus apartment to have another beer.

10. John Doe and W.D. engaged in a brief encounter involving oral sex at John Doe’s

apartment, during which neither climaxed.

11. John Doe maintains that the sexual contact with W.D. was entirely consensual. He

said that W.D. initiated the sexual contact by kissing and touching him and then by performing oral

sex on him, after which he said he also performed oral sex on W.D. No violence or threats of

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 2 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

violence were ever alleged. For two weeks nothing happened, and John Doe gave no further

thought to this brief encounter.

12. However, word of a homosexual encounter between John Doe and W.D. began to

leak out while the hockey team traveled to Philadelphia for a tournament. This tournament took

place from Friday, March 15 through Sunday, March 17, 2019.

13. W.D.’s sexuality had already been the subject of speculation and ridicule among team

members in February after a teammate posted a picture of W.D.’s profile on the dating app Tinder,

which at the time of the picture stated, “I’m just gonna say it. I don’t know how much a box of

condoms costs. Lmk if you like it raw.” As the rumors seemed to confirm the speculation

throughout the team, W.D. vehemently denied being gay and blamed John Doe.

14. On March 19, 2019, W.D. texted with John Doe’s roommate that he had “blacked

out” drunk in Doe’s apartment and awoke to find Doe performing oral sex on him. He also stated,

“And for the record I’m definitely not gay.” He asked, “does [John Doe] pick up men in bars?”

Syracuse redacted this homophobic inquiry from the file produced to John Doe so that it was not

available at his hearing.

15. On March 19, 2019, hockey players were once again celebrating at a local bar. This

time the bar was “Lucy’s.” While drinking at Lucy’s (a/k/a The Orange Crate), John Doe began to

feel ill after tasting something strange in one of his drinks. He therefore decided to leave and go

home. As he did so, Z.B. followed him. It was after midnight. The two had a slight altercation at

the door, when Z.B. wanted to come in and take his shoes off, but John Doe did not want him to

come in. Their argument was strictly verbal, and Z.B. subsequently left.

16. Between 1:30 and 2:00 in the morning of March 20, 2019, however, Z.B. called the

Syracuse Department of Public Safety and Syracuse Police Department (“SPD”), alleging,

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 3 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

hysterically, that John Doe had sexually assaulted him. He alleged the sexual assault in graphic

detail: John Doe, Z.B. alleged, had supposedly pulled his own pants down and attempted to get on

top of Z.B. to remove his pants and have sexual intercourse with him, while Z.B. continually told

John Doe, “No, No, No.”

17. The SPD never filed any charges against John Doe at any time, nor found any

probable cause to arrest John Doe. In fact, the SPD has maintained no records of any criminal

investigation or report against John Doe because the claim was obviously frivolous. A request to the

SPD under New York’s Freedom of Information Law yielded no documents.

18. Z.B.‘s allegations of attempted rape to the SPD were especially dubious. While Z.B.

initially alleged in detail that John Doe “got on top of me” and “tried sticking his penis into me,” he

later admitted to Syracuse that he had “made more” of the incident to the police. In other words,

Z.B. admitted that he had lied. He changed his allegations to say that John Doe had in fact

attempted to kiss him, rather than rape him. Although it is impossible to confuse an attempted kiss

with attempted rape, this glaring inconsistency in Z.B.’s account was not considered by Syracuse

when assessing Z.B.’s credibility.

19. In late March, a panic of homophobia broke out on the hockey team. On March 27,

2019, W.D. filed a Title IX complaint with Syracuse stemming from the consensual encounter he

had with John Doe on March 3.

20. The next day, another Syracuse hockey player, J.P., filed a Title IX complaint alleging

that years earlier, in September 2017, Doe had touched his inner thigh without consent. The day

after that, Doe’s teammate C.F. alleged to Title IX officials that in September 2018, John Doe had

exposed himself to C.F. in his apartment. And finally, on April 1, Syracuse filed a Title IX complaint

on behalf of Z.B., whose outrageous allegations of attempted rape touched off the panic. Z.B.

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 4 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

repeatedly told Syracuse he did not wish to pursue the matter (undoubtedly because, as he later

admitted to the Title IX investigator, he had “made more” of the incident to the SPD than had

actually happened). Z.B. refused to participate in the investigation. Yet Syracuse insisted on bringing

a Title IX complaint against John Doe anyway on behalf of Z.B., whom Syracuse’s Title IX Office

styled an “alleged impacted party.” Z.B. still made no statement and submitted to no interview until

August 14, 2019, at which point Z.B. changed his allegations from attempted rape to an attempted

kiss. Z.B. refused to participate after this statement and did not appear at John Doe’s hearing.

B. Syracuse “Investigates”

21. Investigators from Syracuse’s Title IX office first interviewed W.D., J.P., and C.F.

between March 27 and April 1, 2019 (after Z.B. refused to participate in the investigation, Syracuse

continued to move forward with a complaint on his behalf).

22. During this same period of days, hockey team leaders coordinated meetings to

discuss John Doe. Some of these discussions took place over group text messages. Although

Syracuse investigators requested these group texts, the hockey players – who later served as

witnesses against John Doe – refused to provide them. Despite open admissions that these

witnesses coordinated their testimony and withheld evidence, Syracuse nevertheless credited all of

their accounts., even after they refused to show up at Syracuse’s campus court hearing.

23. On March 28, 2019, Syracuse placed John Doe on interim suspension, and he was

thrown off campus.

24. On April 3, 2019, Doe appealed his interim suspension, but Syracuse perfunctorily

denied that appeal on April 5, 2019.

25. This was John Doe’s last semester, and he arranged to complete his coursework

remotely. On May 2, 2019, he took his last exam, completing all of the requirements to earn his

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 5 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

degree from Syracuse. Although John Doe was finished with Syracuse, however, Syracuse’s Title IX

office was not finished with John Doe. Syracuse would not finish until over a year later. In the

meantime, John Doe was deprived of the benefit of his degree and his education, and his career was

dead in the water.

26. According to Syracuse’s 2018-2019 Student Conduct System Handbook

(“Handbook” or “Title IX Policy”), Part 10, the university promises to complete Title IX

investigations “within sixty (60) days”:

10.21 The process of investigation and the Board’s decision will typically be
concluded within 60 business days of the original complaint, pending special
circumstances. If circumstances arise that delay either the investigation or the
Board's determination of an outcome, both parties will be sent written notification
of the delay and its cause. Each party will receive written notification of the decision
of the University Conduct Board including a finding of responsibility, whether sex
discrimination was found and sanctions.

The Handbook also provides:

The University strives to complete such investigations within sixty (60) business
days. In exceptional circumstances (including, but not limited to, especially complex
cases or when the University is not in session), it may be necessary to extend these
timelines. If that occurs, the parties will be informed in writing of the expected
timeline for completion. Both the complainant and the respondent will be notified
at regular intervals of the status of the investigation.

John Doe’s case extended over 15 months, or exactly 463 days from the first complaint, over a year

after John Doe would have graduated, and long after some complainants had left Syracuse.

Syracuse’s Handbook nowhere provides that the Title IX Office will stretch out its so-called

“investigations” or postpone its adjudication over such a long period of time. Syracuse provides no

circumstances, “exceptional” or otherwise, in which its process will extend for 463 days rather than

60.

27. Although Syracuse provides that in “exceptional circumstances” it may extend the

promised 60-day timeline, the Handbook provides that “the parties will be informed in writing of

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 6 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

the expected timeline for completion,” and “will be notified at regular intervals of the status of the

investigation.” John Doe never received such justification, written notification, or “timeline.”

28. With no explanation, let alone written notification and without “exceptional

circumstances,” Syracuse investigators did not even interview John Doe until May 29, 2019, more

than 60 days after the first complaint and weeks after Syracuse’s graduation had occurred.

29. With no explanation, let alone written notification, identification of “cause,” and

without “exceptional circumstances,” Syracuse investigators did not interview the majority of

witnesses in the cases against Doe until May 2019.

30. These delays were extremely prejudicial to John Doe. During the last agonizing

months of the 2019 spring semester, damaging, homophobic rumors continued to swirl around

Doe.

31. On April 7, 2019, John Doe’s roommates informed him via text message that they

did not feel comfortable living with him anymore and that they did not want him attending any

hockey team events. At these hockey team events, they belittled and mocked John Doe in ways that

they also broadcast on social media. The housemates tore down all the posters and memorabilia on

John Doe’s bedroom door and destroyed other property of John Doe’s in the apartment.

32. One member of his team, who later served as a witness against him, was

photographed wearing a t-shirt that included the nicknames of hockey team members. In that

photograph, John Doe’s nickname is covered by a piece of white tape on which is written an illegible

three-letter word, on information and belief a homophobic slur.

33. On June 4, 2019, Syracuse investigator and “victim’s advocate” Bernerd Jacobson

Please be advised that the University’s investigation into these complaints is still
underway. Therefore, the investigation and the University Conduct Board’s
decision will not conclude within the 60-day timeline identified in Section 10 of the
University’s 2018-2019 Sexual and Relationship Violence Resource Guide for

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 7 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

Syracuse University Students. Our timeline was extended due to the availability of
witnesses and the number of witnesses.

34. Victim’s Advocate Jacobson’s stated reason, the availability and number of witnesses,

was pretextual. By June 4, 2019, Syracuse had interviewed eight witnesses for the Complainant

W.D., four witnesses for the Complainant J.P., three witnesses for the Complainant C.F., and one

witness for the Complainant Z.B. Syracuse had interrogated John Doe. The investigation was, for

all intents and purposes, complete.

35. Only in the case of the Complaint of Z.B. did Syracuse conduct any interviews after

June 4, 2019, and all of these proceeded in the next few days. Z.B. himself was never interviewed at

all. His allegations were not tested as part of the investigation of his Complaint. Syracuse subjected

John Doe to another interrogation on June 7, 2019. Then, one last witness (Student 3) was

interviewed June 10, 2019.

36. After June 10, 2019, no further witnesses were interviewed concerning these

complaints. Nevertheless, Syracuse dragged out its final decisions on the four Complaints of W.D.,

J.P., C.F., and Z.B. for over a year, finally expelling John Doe unfairly on June 24, 2020. In fact,

Syracuse did not even hold a hearing until 245 days later (February 10, 2020)—at which point not a

single Complainant or witness appeared.

C. John Doe’s Ex-Girlfriend Files a Complaint after Announcing She Felt “Betrayed”
and “Cheated On”; then Changes Allegations to Non-Consensual Sex

37. From 2016 through February 2019, John Doe was in a dating relationship with a

fellow Syracuse student, N.B. Shortly after the flurry of complaints against John Doe had been filed

with Syracuse’s Title IX Office, she too joined in the homophobic panic.

38. The couple had broken up months before, but on April 15, 2019, N.B. texted Doe to

say “I know about everything that has been going on…. I feel stupid and naïve for trusting you. I

feel betrayal and anger knowing that you cheated on me and that I was used and manipulated.”
8

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 8 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

Importantly, N.B. did not allege anything concerning non-consensual sex or sexual assault at this

time, only unspecified “betrayal,” “cheat[ing],” and being “manipulated,” concerning the allegations

that John Doe had engaged in gay sex.

39. Syracuse’s Title IX Policy in its Handbook provides that confidentiality must be

maintained by all involved in the investigation and complaint resolution process:

University Conduct System formal resolution proceedings are confidential and

closed to persons not directly related to the case. The results of University Student
Conduct System formal resolution process are held confidential in accordance with
applicable law.

40. Syracuse University’s Handbook also sets forth a Statement of Student Rights and

Responsibilities, which promises:

10. CONFIDENTIALITY

Students have the right to access and control to their educational records as
provided in the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, also known as
the Buckley Amendment.

This refers to 20 USC § 1232g, which guarantees students the right to maintain the privacy of their

personal, educational records, including disciplinary records at any university that receives federal

funding.

41. Syracuse refused to follow or enforce its own rules concerning confidentiality and

refused to enforce them against students on the hockey team who were rapidly violating them and

continuing to spread homophobic rumors across campus, including, obviously, to N.B.

42. On April 30, 2019, approximately two weeks after her text about feeling cheated on

and betrayed, N.B. met with Syracuse’s chief Title IX officer, Sheila Johnson Willis, to discuss her

options for a complaint. However, no Syracuse sexual misconduct rule forbids “cheating” or

“betrayal.”

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 9 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

43. More than two months after this meeting, on July 8, 2019, N.B. filed a complaint

against John Doe with Syracuse’s Title IX office, alleging that on three occasions over the course of

a multi-year, undisputedly consensual sexual relationship—throughout which the couple had

engaged in sexual intercourse on a regular basis—she had been “blackout drunk” or had been

“coerced” into consent to sexual activity. Each of these three allegations involved anal intercourse.

44. N.B. also complained to the Syracuse Title IX office about her concerns with John

Doe’s sexual orientation, even when this was irrelevant to allegations of sexual misconduct, such as

including in her complaint the fact that John Doe had asked her to have a “threesome” with another

Syracuse hockey player and that he had befriended a gay couple on a December 2018 trip to Miami.

45. In fact, N.B. had asked John Doe about the “threesome” after the hockey player (a

Syracuse alum) had brought up the idea. She had also bought the gay couple at the bar in Miami a

drink. Yet now, N.B. emphasized any facts that suggested John Doe might be gay.

46. Syracuse did not bother to notify John Doe of this complaint for two months.

Syracuse did not interview John Doe about this complaint until September 5, 2019.

47. With no explanation, let alone written notification, Syracuse investigators did not

interview witnesses in the N.B. case until September 16, 2019, already more than 60 days after N.B.

filed her Title IX complaint.

48. On October 16, 2019, Syracuse Investigator Melanie Cuevas-Rodriguez, a licensed

attorney, sent John Doe and email:

Please be advised that the University’s investigation into the complaint is still
underway. Therefore, the investigation and the University Conduct Board’s
decision will not conclude within the 60-day timeline identified in the University’s
2018-2019 Sexual and Relationship Violence Resource Guide for Syracuse
University Students. Hence, our timeline has been extended.

10

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 10 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

Syracuse gave no reason for its continued protracted delays. In fact, in direct violation of Syracuse’s

own policies, Investigator Cuevas-Rodriguez did not give any reason or cause for the delay.

Syracuse’s argument was simply that the “complaint is still underway.”

49. Following this October 16, 2019 perfunctory notification of delay, just as in the first

rash of Complaints against John Doe, no further interviews were conducted. In fact, Syracuse had

completed all interviews concerning the new and belated N.B. complaint almost a month before, by

September 19, 2019. And once again, no hearing was held on N.B. or any other Complaint until 117

days later (February 10, 2020). N.B. did not bother to appear and John Doe could not challenge her

story. Nor did any of N.B.’s witnesses appear. She and all of her witnesses were placed beyond

reproach in Syracuse’s process due to Syracuse’s protracted delays. No final decision was reached

on N.B.’s complaint until John Doe’s arbitrary expulsion on June 24, 2019—fully 252 days after

Syracuse’s arbitrary and capricious “notification” of delay, without cause.

D. Syracuse’s Arbitrary Adjudication

50. In September 2019, John Doe requested that all five complaints against him be heard

together. He made this request because he believed the complaints represented a coordinated effort

to target him based on a homophobic panic spread throughout the hockey team and spread to his

ex-girlfriend N.B. John Doe believed that consolidating the cases would not only streamline the

process but also allow the university to see his accusers’ collaboration and collective panic in a way

that hearing them separately would not. He also believed this would save time, and he was eager to

graduate and get his degree.

51. Syracuse agreed but showed no interest in saving time (or interest in evidence). It

took Syracuse another five months to hold a hearing, at which none of John Doe’s accusers even

11

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 11 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

bothered to show up. Only on February 10, 2020, already approaching one year after the first rash

of complaints, did Syracuse hold its hearing.

52. Not a single Complainant ever bothered to respond to the incident reports Syracuse

generated concerning its investigations. This is crucial. Syracuse’s Handbook provides that

complainants may participate at all stages of the investigation and campus court proceedings:

Upon the receipt of a complaint that, on its face, appears to violate the University's
Sexual Harassment, Abuse, and Assault Prevention Policy, or related policies, the
Title IX Officer will designate an investigator who will take appropriate steps to
understand what occurred, and, where necessary and appropriate conduct a
prompt, adequate, reliable and impartial investigation. The investigator will have
the opportunity to meet with both the complainant, respondent, and witnesses to
the alleged incident to gather information regarding the facts and circumstances of
the incident. The investigator may also investigate related violations of the Code
of Student Conduct or other University policies that may arise during the Title IX
investigation. Both the complainant and the respondent will have an equal
opportunity to provide the investigator information, names of witnesses, third-
party expert testimony, electronic communications, or other evidence related to the
complaint. Both the complainant and the respondent should be prepared to offer
all information of which they are aware that they desire to be considered in the
investigation.

Further, the Handbook states:

Once the investigation report is complete, both the respondent and the
complainant will be given the opportunity to review the report and provide a
written response within three (3) business days. The Title IX Investigator will
review the written responses to determine whether they require additional
investigation. The original report, the parties' responses, and any supplemental
reports will be provided to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities and
the parties by the Title IX Investigator.

53. In the flurry of complaints against John Doe, not a single Complainant ever

bothered to respond to John Doe’s written objections to any Investigation Report. John Doe’s

account and his objections to the Complainants’ stories were therefore uncontested.

54. Because not a single Complainant appeared at the hearing, the Hearing Board

received no testimony about their allegations and subjected none to questioning. John Doe’s

truthful account of his actions was therefore uncontested at the hearing.

12

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 12 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

55. Many of the Complainants’ allegations had changed constantly. This was of no

concern to Syracuse. For example, during the course of Syracuse’s investigation, Z.B. changed his

allegations of attempted rape to attempted kissing. Syracuse’s response to John Doe’s consistent,

truthful account, however, was to tell him that his statements and testimony were “self-serving”

because respondents have a motive to lie.

56. After this non-hearing, at which John Doe had no opportunity to confront his

accusers or to question their inconsistent stories, the Hearing Board took almost another two

months to reach a decision. On April 1, 2020, the Hearing Board found Doe responsible in 4 of the

5 cases. (They found him not responsible in the case of C.F.)

57. Because of the number of complaints against him, the Hearing Board recommended

a sanction of expulsion. In other words, Syracuse endorsed the homophobic panic. The university’s

logic was apparently that complainants, no matter how inconsistent and no matter how questionable

their motives, have strength in numbers.

58. In one incident involving a winter trip to Miami in December 2018, N.B. alleged that

while she was blackout drunk, John Doe had anally raped her by removing a skin-tight bodysuit,

which he allegedly removed but then also somehow managed to put back on to her body after

completing the supposed assault. N.B.’s allegations were physically impossible, but Syracuse credited

them anyway.

59. Syracuse also asked John Doe about the nature of consent in their relationship. John

Doe explained, “I asked, she agrees, and I ask, she says no, and I stop.” Syracuse found this was

evidence of coercion. Syracuse found that John Doe was responsible for the Miami incident, yet

found that N.B.’s other allegations of anal rape were not credible -- that is, Syracuse found that N.B.

had misrepresented facts in her allegations against John Doe but found him responsible anyway.

13

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 13 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

60. On April 6, 2020, John Doe appealed the findings of the Hearing Board to the

University Appeals Board.

61. On appeal, Doe alleged that the numerous delays in the investigation and hearing

severely prejudiced his ability to receive a fair process. He also argued that the sanction was

disproportionate and that the Hearing Board failed to consider issues of witness bias, collaboration,

and homophobia.

62. The Appeals Board found that Doe’s arguments about collusion and bias fell outside

of permissible appeal grounds and did not consider them, just as the investigators and Hearing

Board refused to inquire into or receive evidence of group homophobia on the hockey team.

63. The Appeals Board held that while the investigation timeline and hearing process

may have been “frustrating” to Doe, the delays had not deprived him of a fair process.

64. The Appeals Board upheld all of the findings against Doe.

65. On June 24, 2020, the Associate Vice President for the Student Experience and

Dean of Students confirmed the findings of the University Appeals Board, and Doe’s expulsion

became final. This was 15 months, or exactly 463 days, from the first complaint.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Syracuse Violated its Own Rules by Extending the Timeline Without Explanation
and by Disregarding Voluminous Evidence of Witness Bias)

66. John Doe repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full

herein.

67. Syracuse’s policy promises that investigations will conclude within 60 days barring

“exceptional circumstances.” Even in “exceptional circumstances,” Syracuse promises that

participants will be “informed in writing” about the revised timeline, informed of cause for delay,

and given regular status updates about the investigation. Syracuse also promises:

14

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 14 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

The process of investigation and the Board’s decision will typically be concluded
within 60 business days of the original complaint, pending special circumstances. If
circumstances arise that delay either the investigation or the Board’s determination
of an outcome, both parties will be sent written notification of the delay and its
cause.

68. Syracuse did not interview John Doe for the first time until May 29, 2019, more than

60 days after the first complaint was brought against him on March 27, 2019.

69. Syracuse did not interview John Doe about the N.B. case until September 5, 2019,

nearly 60 days after N.B. filed her complaint.

70. Syracuse also waited months to interview third-party witnesses in any of the cases

brought against John Doe.

71. During these months, while he was on interim suspension and while his reputation

and career were being irrevocably damaged by members of the hockey team, Syracuse never

informed John Doe about a revised timeline or gave him regular status updates about the

investigation. Syracuse never informed John Doe of the “special circumstances” constituting delay

and “its cause.” In fact, he was not even informed of the existence of N.B.’s complaint until nearly

two months after it was filed.

72. John Doe was irreparably prejudiced by these delays in the investigation and hearing

process. By the time Doe was even interviewed for the first time, Syracuse’s graduation had already

occurred, making it more difficult for the university to thoroughly investigate his side of the story.

73. Syracuse’s failure to interview John Doe until after the school year had ended also

made it more difficult for the university to investigate Doe’s allegations about the homophobic

culture on the hockey team, a culture that led directly to the complaints against him. The lengthy

delay prevented John Doe from transferring or seeking to complete his education elsewhere, and it

15

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 15 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

stopped his career dead in his tracks just as he would otherwise have started his adult, professional

life.

74. John Doe was also prejudiced because months of delay in interviewing witnesses

(who John Doe never got a chance to cross-examine and who never even bothered to appear at the

hearing to answer questions from the Hearing Board) gave those witnesses almost limitless

opportunities and time to collaborate on their narratives. This was a concern that Doe raised from

the beginning. Yet despite the intractable delays, Syracuse never obtained the complainants’ and

other witnesses’ group text messages, in which they admitted collectively discussing accusations

against Doe.

75. Throughout the conduct process, Doe repeatedly told investigators that he believed

members of the hockey team had colluded to paint him as a sexual predator in the wake of learning

that he had a sexual encounter with a male student affiliated with the team.

76. The investigators acknowledged that witnesses identified as Students 1, 2, and 3, who

were members of the hockey team, met to discuss reporting the alleged J.P. incident. Students 1, 2,

and 3 also exchanged group text messages about this, and they refused to provide Syracuse with any

of the group texts. Syracuse’s investigators acknowledged that the students’ attendance at the

meeting could indicate “some bias against the Respondent,” but then stated without further

explanation that the “potential bias did not appear to manifest in any untruthfulness or

exaggeration.”

77. Although Syracuse investigators acknowledged that two additional witnesses in the

W.D. case – hockey players identified as Student 5 and Student 6 – could have “bias against” John

Doe, Syracuse washed this away as well. Syracuse again did not “detect any motive for

16

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 16 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

untruthfulness” on the part of Students 5 and 6. Syracuse detected only a motive for untruthfulness

in John Doe, simply because he was the accused.

78. Syracuse’s Handbook, which governed the complaints against Doe, provides that all

students have the right to a conduct process that is “fair” and “impartial.”

79. Throughout the investigation and adjudication of the claims against Doe, Syracuse

repeatedly minimized the issue of witness bias despite ample evidence – evidence Syracuse itself

acknowledged – that multiple witnesses and complainants were potentially biased against Doe due to

the homophobic panic throughout the hockey team.

80. In the case brought by complainant W.D., for example, one of the witnesses was

Doe’s roommate, who provided investigators with “second hand” information about the sexual

encounter between Doe and W.D. Doe’s roommate, identified as Student 4, had also been

photographed on social media wearing a t-shirt with the names of hockey team members that had a

piece of white tape placed over Doe’s name and in its place an apparent homophobic slur.

81. Syracuse’s investigators acknowledged that Student 4 might have “motive and bias

towards Respondent and desire a particular outcome in favor of Complainant,” yet at the same time

they said that they “did not detect any motive for untruthfulness in the information shared by

Student 4.” No contradiction is too glaring for Syracuse’s results-driven process to find accused

students responsible.

82. Complainant J.P. was a member of the hockey team who, just days after the first

three complaints were filed against John Doe, filed a complaint alleging that nearly two years prior,

Doe had touched his inner thigh without consent.

83. J.P.’s original statement was very different from the statement presented to the

Hearing Board in the Investigation Report. The investigators also redacted and excluded large

17

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 17 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

blocks of J.P.’s text messages from the investigation report, which excluded evidence of the hockey

team’s homophobic panic, and even redacted a line from John Doe’s response—which J.P. had

never bothered to counter or contest. In its opinion, the Hearing Board stated that it found J.P.

credible because of the “absence of a motive to make up the incident,” again ignoring the

homophobic culture on the hockey team which Syracuse had failed to investigate from the start.

This was not simply about weighing the evidence, this was about Syracuse’s refusal to investigate

evidence in the first place. As with every other Complainant, J.P. had disappeared after the first

mass panic among his team members and refused to participate in the hearing.

84. The Hearing Board’s decision in J.P.’s case made no mention of the potential witness

bias noted by the investigators.

85. The Hearing Board also ignored investigators’ comments about potential bias in the

case of John Doe’s ex-girlfriend N.B.

86. Two weeks before meeting with the Title IX coordinator for the first time, N.B. sent

John Doe a text message stating “I know about everything that has been going on…. I feel stupid

and naïve for trusting you. I feel betrayal and anger knowing that you cheated on me and that I was

used and manipulated.” N.B. made no mention of coercive sex, non-consensual sex, and certainly

not sexual assault.

87. Indeed, N.B. straightforwardly admitted to Syracuse’s investigators that “she broke

up with [John Doe] in March 2019 because she heard rumors that he allegedly cheated on her [i.e. by

having gay sex with a man].” Syracuse observed, “Therefore, Complainant may have motive or bias

for filing a complaint, which could affect the reliability of the information she shared.”

88. In its opinion finding John Doe responsible for one of the three allegations brought

by N.B., the Hearing Board erased this motive and bias. Instead, the Hearing Board inexplicably

18

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 18 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

wrote that “the Board finds the Complainant’s account credible in that she does not remember what

happened in each of the three encounters.” Ordinarily, when a witness admits to having no memory

of an incident, this is probative evidence that they have no credible testimony to give. To Syracuse,

so long as such a witness is a complainant in a sexual misconduct case, it apparently is the very

source of their credibility.

89. N.B. and John Doe had a long, consensual sexual relationship stretching over the

course of years. N.B. later claimed not to remember whether she had given consent but

“remembered” enough to allege that three episodes of anal sex, among countless sexual acts

between the couple, were supposedly non-consensual. N.B. was clearly bothered by accusations that

John Doe was gay and considered this so significant that she mentioned it to investigators that John

Doe once asked her to have a threesome with another man and that he had befriended a gay couple

on a trip he and N.B. took to Miami over winter break in 2018 —totally irrelevant facts to any

accusations of sexual misconduct yet entirely consistent with a homophobic panic.

90. To Syracuse, this consistent evidence of homophobia on campus, and of N.B.’s

sense of betrayal at learning that John Doe may have been attracted to men, did not matter. She

simply alleged that she was a victim . That was enough for Syracuse.

91. John Doe repeatedly asked the Hearing Board to consider the possibility that the

complaints against him resulted from a homophobic culture on the hockey team and from N.B.’s

feelings of betrayal about his sexual orientation. The Hearing Board refused to consider this

possibility, and, of course, no witnesses ever appeared at the Hearing to be questioned on the

subject. Their word was simply taken at face value.

92. Syracuse repeatedly found that multiple complainants and witnesses had motives to

lie, lies which some even admitted in the process. Syracuse nevertheless found any inculpatory

19

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 19 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

statements “credible.” Yet Syracuse deemed John Doe’s consistent account of events not credible

because it was “self-serving.”

93. Then, on appeal, the Appeals Board did not consider this argument because it was

outside the scope of appeal provided for by University policy.

94. John Doe was irreparably prejudiced by the Hearing Board’s failure to meaningfully

consider the fact that – by the investigators’ own admission – numerous complainants and witnesses

may have been biased against Doe and may have had ulterior motives for filing their complaints

and/or testifying against him. Despite the fact that the record is replete with such evidence and that

Doe repeatedly begged Syracuse to consider it, the University refused to credit even the findings of

bias made by its own investigators.

95. For the reasons set forth above, Syracuse’s decision finding John Doe responsible

for sexual misconduct should be vacated and John Doe should receive his degree.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Syracuse Engaged in a Results-Driven Process that Failed to Explore Numerous

Inconsistencies in Violation of State Law)

96. John Doe repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full

herein.

97. NYS Education Law § 6444 has protections in place for accused students.

98. NYS Education Law § 6444(5)(c) requires colleges and universities to conduct an

investigation that is both “thorough” and “fair.”

99. A June 4, 2016 guidance document issued by the New York State Education

Department on complying with New York’s Education Law specifically states that “a full and fair

investigation includes exploring inconsistencies.”

20

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 20 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

100. The allegations against John Doe were riddled with inconsistencies that Syracuse

simply ignored or considered superficially.

101. For example, on March 20, 2019, complainant Z.B. called the Syracuse University

Police Department to report that John Doe “got on top of me” and “tried sticking his penis into

me.” This was a clear allegation of attempted rape.

102. The initial complaint against John Doe by the Title IX office alleged that John Doe

had violated Syracuse’s sexual misconduct policy with respect to Z.B. by “attempting anal

intercourse.”

103. Following John Doe’s response to the investigative report, however, Z.B. contacted

the Title IX office on August 15, 2019 to walk back his accusations. He now stated that John Doe

had merely tried to kiss him.

104. In a follow-up statement made to Title IX investigators on October 7, 2019, Z.B.

admitted that he had “made more” of the encounter when he spoke to police and that “I don’t think

[John Doe] made contact with me.” In other words, Z.B. admitted that he had lied.

105. In its opinion finding John Doe responsible for the alleged attempted kiss, the

Hearing Board glossed over this glaring inconsistency. The Hearing Board stated that Z.B.’s

inconsistencies were excused by his intoxication level and the alleged stress of the encounter, which

the Hearing Board had already prejudged. For Syracuse, intoxication excuses the false statements of

the accuser, never the accused.

106. Another obvious inconsistency was the varying statements of N.B. She texted John

Doe after learning that he had allegedly engaged in gay sex, “I know about everything that has been

going on…. I feel stupid and naïve for trusting you. I feel betrayal and anger knowing that you

cheated on me and that I was used and manipulated.” She made no indication that there was sexual

21

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 21 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

assault, coercion, or rape. Only later, when she decided to join the pile-on of homophobic Title IX

complaints, did N.B. claim that three instances of anal sex — among countless undisputedly

consensual sexual acts between her and John Doe both before, during, and after these incidents —

had been non-consensual. And these allegations were mixed in with allegations that John Doe had

expressed interest in homosexual relationships and dared to befriend gay men.

107. The Hearing Board never inquired into these inconsistencies or into N.B.’s obvious

discomfort with allegations that her boyfriend might be gay.

108. The Hearing Board also overlooked inconsistencies in Complainant W.D.’s

accusations. W.D.’s accounts of the evening in question varied dramatically.

109. W.D. told the Title IX investigators that John Doe tried to kiss him, and that W.D.

then laid back on the bed, where the next thing he knew, he felt Doe’s mouth on his penis.

110. By contrast, W.D. told one of his friends, a witness identified in the investigative

report as Student 1, that Doe “made advances on [him] and started kissing him and taking off his

pants and started giving [him] a ‘blow job.’” In yet another account, W.D. told another friend,

witness Student 3, that he only “remembered waking up with his pants off.” W.D. also described

non-existent items in John Doe’s room.

111. Despite these catalogued inconsistencies in the investigative report, the Hearing

Board held that W.D. provided a “detailed account that remained consistent over time.”

112. Finally, despite open and obvious evidence of a homophobic panic among the

Syracuse hockey team, which also spread to John Doe’s ex-girlfriend N.B. in clear breach of

Syracuse’s confidentiality policy, Syracuse never investigated this obvious motivation for the mob-

like pile-on of vicious accusations against John Doe.

22

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 22 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

113. Syracuse’s failure to explore multiple inconsistencies in the Complainants’ accounts

violates New York’s statutory requirement that students receive a process that is “thorough” and

“fair.” Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Syracuse’s decisions finding John Doe

responsible for sexual misconduct should be vacated and John Doe should be awarded his degree.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Syracuse Abused its Discretion as to the Measure of Discipline Imposed)

114. John Doe repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if fully set forth

herein.

115. Syracuse’s Handbook provides that:

Once a finding of responsibility is made, and prior to deliberations regarding

sanctions, the Board will consider any other relevant information including, without
limitation:

• impact statements submitted by either party;

• prior misconduct of the respondent (student conduct and criminal

convictions);

• sanctions issued in prior similar University conduct cases, if any;

• the nature or violence of the conduct at issue;

• whether the respondent accepted responsibility for the conduct;

• maintenance of a safe and respectful learning and living environment;

• protection of the University community; and

• any other mitigating, exacerbating, or compelling circumstances in order to

reach a just and appropriate resolution in each case.

Sanctions will be designed to eliminate the prohibited conduct, prevent its

recurrence, and remedy its effects. The University Conduct Board may impose
sanctions up to and including expulsion from the University and may design
sanctions that are educational and/or remedial specific to the facts of a
given case. Standard sanctions for alcohol, safety, sexual harassment and violence
related behaviors are listed in Part 11 of this Handbook.

23

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 23 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

(Emphasis in original.) Syracuse further emphasizes the so-called “educational” nature of its

disciplinary system in its policy as follows in Part 11. SANCTIONS FOR ALL CONDUCT

CASES:

11.1 The following sanctions, or any combination thereof, may be applied to any
individual student, group of students, or student organization, for violations of the
Code of Student Conduct and related University policies:

a. EDUCATIONAL

The primary goal of the University Student Conduct System is education .

Respective Boards and case managers may design sanctions that are specific to an
individual case when it is determined that educational value may result and the
interests of the University community are maintained.

116. Syracuse’s Notice of Hearing sent to John Doe on January 24, 2020 (notice of the

February 10, 2020 hearing) told John Doe: “the primary purpose of the University Conduct System

is to educate and protect all members of the University community. Sanctions, if imposed, are

designed to accomplish these goals, and are not intended to be primarily punitive in nature.”

117. No educational purpose was served by the post hoc and retroactive expulsion of

John Doe. No remedial purpose was served by the post hoc and retroactive expulsion of John Doe.

The only purpose served was to deprive him of the benefit of his tuition payments to the University,

strip him of the degree that he worked for during four years of higher education, and brand him as a

pariah and sex offender for the rest of his life. In fact, Syracuse stole John Doe’s tuition and

stigmatizes him yet labels the cancellation of his degree as somehow “educational.” Furthermore,

condoning and endorsing the hockey team’s homophobic panic reinforces illegal prejudice in the

Syracuse student body and “remediates” nothing.

118. John Doe was a senior during the 2018-2019 academic year. After Syracuse placed

him on interim suspension, he was able to arrange to finish his coursework remotely, and on May 2,

2019, he took his last final exam and thus completed all of the requirements for his degree.

24

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 24 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

119. Over his four years at Syracuse, John Doe has paid more than $ 210,000 in tuition to

the university.

120. Syracuse’s “expulsion” of John Doe did not take place until nearly a year after he

completed his coursework at the university. Therefore, the university held that “Given the fact that

[John Doe] completed his degree requirements and is not a current student, this sanction means the

University will not confer [John Doe’s] degree or issue [John Doe] a diploma.”

121. The effect of this punishment is that after paying four years of tuition and

completing four years of coursework, Syracuse has deprived John Doe of the college degree that he

both paid for and worked for over four years.

122. According to the Handbook, sanctions in sexual misconduct cases are also allegedly

“designed to eliminate the prohibited conduct, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects.” Yet

there is no rational relationship between John Doe’s sanction and this supposed goal of Syracuse’s

arbitrary proceedings. Withholding John Doe’s diploma advances none of these objectives.

Furthermore, because the nature of John Doe’s sanction is confidential, his unfair expulsion sets an

example to no one. Doe had already completed all coursework at Syracuse and was no longer a

member of the Syracuse community at the time of his post hoc expulsion.

123. The only effect of Syracuse’s punishment is to steal his tuition and strip him of the

college degree that he earned and paid for.

25

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 25 of 26
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2020

124. A ccordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Syracuse's decisions finding John Doe

responsible for sexual illiscut-duct should be vacated and John Doe's degree should be restored.

Reauested Relief

John Doe respectfully requests that this Court issue an order-

i. Syracuse's -L-E-== him responsible for sexual misconduct; and

Vacating finding

ii. Ordering expüñgement of the corresponding trescdpt;

iii. Ordering that John Doe immediately be awarded his degree; and

iv. Ordering such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM )

John Doe, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am the petitioner in this proceeding.

I have read the above petition and hereby state that it is true to the best of my imowledge
and as to those matters alleged to be on information and belief, I believe them to be true.

John Doe
Sworn to before me this
20th
day of October, 2020

Notary-P-ublic Michael Thad Allen, Esq.

Commissioner of the New York
Supreme Court, Reg. No. 5358726

26

This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 26 of 26