Third Circuit: Basic Fairness Requires Live Hearing, Cross-Examination

The Third Circuit took a hammer to USciences’ single-investigator model in this opinion, overturning the district court’s dismissal of Doe’s Title IX claim. Here is an excerpt:

To be sure, the investigator listened to Doe during her two interviews with him. But USciences did not provide Doe a real, live, and adversarial hearing. Nor did USciences permit Doe to cross-examine witnesses—including his accusers, Roe 1 and Roe 2. As we explained above, basic fairness in the context of sexual-assault investigations requires that students accused of sexual assault receive these procedural protections.

Thus, Doe states a plausible claim that, at least as it has been implemented here, the single-investigator model violated the fairness that USciences promises students accused of sexual misconduct.

Read the full decision in our Title IX Legal Database.

Thank You for Reading

If you like what you have read, feel free to sign up for our newsletter here:

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor is a Title IX advisor, the founder of Title IX for All, and the creator of its databases on Title IX litigation and enforcement.

Accused? Call Us or Book a Free Consultation

Are you a student (or a relative of a student) accused of sexual misconduct in a school disciplinary proceeding? With a thirty minute free consultation, you can schedule a call with a Title IX advisor who can discuss the allegations with you, answer questions, offer some information and advice, and discuss potentially serving as an ongoing Title IX advisor in your case.

Book an appointment using the calendar below or call ‪‪(903) 309-0332. A full description of our advisory service is available here.

More from Title IX for All

Accused Students Database

Research due process and similar lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations (sexual assault, harassment, dating violence, stalking, etc.) in higher education.

The Third Circuit took a hammer to USciences’ single-investigator model in this opinion, overturning the district court’s dismissal of Doe’s Title IX claim. Here is an excerpt:

To be sure, the investigator listened to Doe during her two interviews with him. But USciences did not provide Doe a real, live, and adversarial hearing. Nor did USciences permit Doe to cross-examine witnesses—including his accusers, Roe 1 and Roe 2. As we explained above, basic fairness in the context of sexual-assault investigations requires that students accused of sexual assault receive these procedural protections.

Thus, Doe states a plausible claim that, at least as it has been implemented here, the single-investigator model violated the fairness that USciences promises students accused of sexual misconduct.

Read the full decision in our Title IX Legal Database.