A judge has ruled Loyola University Chicago did not discriminate against a student for being male, when the school expelled him for alleged sexual misconduct with a female student, saying the school was "even handed" in its treatment of him.
Judge Steven Seeger delivered the ruling Sept. 28 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The ruling concerns a lawsuit, lodged in 2018 by a former undergraduate student athlete identified as John Doe, against Loyola University.
Doe and a female undergraduate student athlete, identified as Jane Roe, had three encounters between Jan. 13 and Jan. 17, 2016 at Doe's apartment. They engaged in sexual acts the first and third times, but Roe said Doe pushed himself on her the second occasion; Doe denied anything untoward happened during the second visit, according to court papers.
A few days after the third encounter, they had a falling out at a party. Roe then told her coach she was uneasy with what happened sexually. The coach responded by reporting to the university that Roe was "encouraged to have physical contact" with Doe "past a point in which she was comfortable."
During an ensuing interview by a school official, Roe said she was not "forced or coerced" by Doe and did not want to file a complaint. However, Roe did make a formal complaint in fall 2016, saying she felt ill at ease seeing Doe around campus. As a consequence, Loyola authorities investigated, held a hearing and determined Doe was responsible for “non-consensual sexual penetration” and “non-consensual sexual contact” during the first and second encounters.
He was expelled in December 2016.
While these events were transpiring, another female student, identified in court documents as Elizabeth, formally accused Doe of improprieties with her, but the school found Doe did not commit any misconduct.
Doe sued Loyola, claiming the university's procedures intentionally favored women over men. Loyola asked Judge Seeger to throw out the suit.
"Doe faced two disciplinary proceedings, based on accusations by two women: Roe and Elizabeth. Doe won one, and lost one. Doe has a hard time arguing that the deck is stacked against him, because he won one of the two hands," Seeger pointed out.
Seeger further noted the school did not even side entirely with Roe, favoring Roe in connection with two of the encounters and favoring Doe in the other.
"He won some, he lost some. Things look even handed," Seeger observed.
Doe argued, within his overall contention Loyola mistreated him because of his gender, that the school was unfair.
Seeger acknowledged a Loyola official may have been unfair in not furnishing Roe's initial statement, in which she said she was not "forced or coerced," to investigators, other school officials and Doe. However, Seeger had a large caveat.
"Fairness, writ large, is not the yardstick. The question is not whether the university followed fair procedures, or gave Doe a fair chance to challenge the veracity of Roe’s account. The standard is whether the failure to share that information was intentionally discriminatory, not whether it was unfair. Something can be unfair, but not discriminatory," Seeger stated.
Commenting on the "avalanche of arguments" put forth by Doe in his suit, Seeger said, "There’s a lot there. But at the end of the day, there isn’t much there."
Doe has been represented by Patricia Hamill and Lorie Dakessian, of the Chicago firm of Conrad O'Brien, as well as by Jonathan Cyrluk, of Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, of Chicago.
Loyola has been defended by Peter Land, Ellen Babbitt and Gwendolyn Morales, of the Chicago firm of Husch Blackwell.