1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN DOE

Civil Action No.: 4:22-cv-00297

Plaintiff,

vs.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY,

VICTOR J. BOSCHINI, JR,

in his official capacity.

 

 Defendants.

 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. John Doe (“Doe” or “Plaintiff”) sues Defendants Texas Christian University 

(“TCU”) and Victor J. Boschini, Jr. (“Boschini” and collectively with TCU, the “Defendants”) for 

violation of 20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq. (“Title IX”) and for breach of contract. Doe seeks relief 

enjoining Defendants from suspending Doe from TCU.

2. Absent relief from this Court, Doe’s entire college career will be destroyed as a 

result of phony sexual assault allegations by his ex-girlfriend and Defendants’ biased application 

of Title IX in violation of Doe’s rights. TCU and the persons who conducted the Title IX 

proceeding that ultimately determined Doe’s fate, promote and harbor the mentality of “believe 

the woman,” “believe survivors” and “never blame the victim.”

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 39 PageID 1283
2

3. Doe completed five (5) semesters at TCU as of May 2022. He is on a Dean’s 

scholarship and intends to enter the Neeley Business School.1 His GPA is a 3.45. Doe is an Eagle 

Scout and has never had any disciplinary problems throughout his entire academic career. He has 

never had problems with the law. Doe has certainly never been accused of “sexual assault”—until

his ex-girlfriend, Jane Roe (“Roe”), vindictively and falsely accused Doe of sexually assaulting 

her on two occasions during the fall semester of 2020 (the “Allegations”). For the first false 

allegation (“Allegation 1”), Roe claimed that on August 19, 2020, Doe digitally penetrated her 

vagina without her consent while in her dorm room in Colby Hall on TCU’s campus. Roe waited 

over a year after Allegation 1 to make a complaint to TCU.2

4. For the second false allegation (“Allegation 2”), Roe claimed that on October 3, 

2020, Doe inserted his penis in her vagina without her consent while in Austin. Roe claims that 

Allegation 2 occurred after Roe called Doe (her prior alleged rapist according to Allegation 1)

from her hotel because she needed him to comfort her in the midst of a panic attack about being 

“drugged and raped,” and Doe picked up Roe from the hotel and then allegedly raped her at a 

friend’s apartment where they stayed the night together (Doe drove Roe back to the hotel the 

following morning). 

5. Roe initially claimed Allegation 1 occurred after Allegation 2, but reversed her 

position shortly before the panel hearing after being confronted with text message evidence that 

proved Allegation 1 could not have occurred after Allegation 2.

1 Doe applied to enter the Neely Business School, but ultimately could not complete the process due to Roe’s Title IX 

complaint.

2 Section 5.1.1. of the Student Code of Conduct states that reports of misconduct “should be submitted as soon as 

possible after the incident takes place and under most circumstances, should be submitted within one (1) calendar 

year.” Roe reported Allegation 1 thirteen (13) months later.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 39 PageID 1284
3

6. TCU conducted a panel hearing on January 28, 2022, via Zoom to determine 

whether the Allegations violated TCU’s Policy 1.008, the Policy on Prohibited Discrimination, 

Harassment, Sexual Misconduct, and Retaliation (the “Policy”). The hearing panel issued their 

Deliberative Report on February 2, 2022, and concluded that (1) Doe engaged in conduct that 

violates the Policy for Allegation 1; and (2) Doe did not violate the Policy for Allegation 2. 

7. As the penalty, the hearing panel suspended Doe “effective immediately” and stated

that he is eligible to reenroll in classes for the 2023 Maymester, but such enrollment and acceptance 

is not guaranteed. The hearing panel also directed Doe to attend therapy and counseling and to 

complete online Title IX training prior to reenrollment. In addition, Doe is to remain on “conduct 

probation” for the remainder of his time at TCU. 

8. Doe timely appealed the hearing panel’s decision on Allegation 1 to the Vice 

Chancellor for Student Affairs within three days after the date of the Deliberative Report. The 

Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs has final authority to reverse or uphold the hearing officer’s 

decision, and the decision by the appellate officer is binding upon all involved. Michael Russel, 

the Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, upheld the hearing panel’s decision with respect 

to Allegation 1, giving Doe no choice but to file this Complaint.

II. PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Doe is an undergraduate student at TCU. He is a resident of Texas and 

may be served through undersigned counsel. At all relevant times he was an undergraduate student 

at TCU, except that Doe did not enroll for the Fall 2021 academic semester for the reasons 

explained herein.

10. Defendant TCU is an institution of higher education. TCU is located at 2800 South 

University Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76109. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 39 PageID 1285
4

11. Defendant Boschini is an adult individual and resident of Texas, who at all relevant 

times was the Chancellor of TCU and is named as a defendant in his official capacity. Chancellor 

Boschini’s place of business is 3101 Bellaire Drive North, Fort Worth, Texas 76109.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because 

Plaintiff’s cause of action arises under Title IX, 20 U.S.C.1681, et seq. This Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all the parties in this lawsuit because each 

party listed in the lawsuit resides in Texas.

14. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to 

Plaintiff’s claims occurred at TCU’s campus within the jurisdiction of this Court.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. TCU’s Policies

15. TCU has several policies that govern its relationships with students and faculty.

16. Those policies include, without limitation, the Policy, “Policy 1.009” (herein so 

called) titled “Responding to Reports of Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual 

Misconduct and Retaliation, the Student Code of Conduct (the “Code”), and the Student Bill of 

Rights and Responsibilities (the “Bill of Rights”).

17. The Policy governs, in part, allegations of sexual assault under Title IX.

18. The Code and Policy 1.009 set forth, among other things, the processes by which 

Title IX proceedings are handled and the rights of the parties involved.

19. Sections I. 1.-2. of the Bill of Rights address a student’s right to access higher 

education at TCU and his or her right to use all appropriate facilities and services of TCU.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 39 PageID 1286
5

20. Section II. 1. of the Bill of Rights gives students the right to register for and attend 

any class for which he or she has met the prerequisites.

B. Doe’s and Roe’s Romantic and Sexual Relationship from 2018-2020

21. Doe and Roe are undergraduate students at TCU. Doe began his freshman year at 

TCU in the fall of 2019, and Roe began her freshman year at TCU a year after him, in the fall of 

2020.

22. Doe and Roe both attended Fort Worth Country Day School (“Country Day”) and

became acquainted through a mutual friend. Shortly thereafter, in the fall of 2018, Doe and Roe

began a romantic dating relationship with each other—Roe was a junior at Country Day and Doe 

was a senior. 

23. Although Doe and Roe broke up in early 2020, their romantic and sexual

relationship continued off and on through most of 2020. 

C. The Colby Hall Incident (Allegation 1)

24. Throughout their entire relationship, including after they were “officially” broken 

up, Roe and Doe were sexually active and intimate with each other, and Roe frequently initiated 

the sex.

25. For example, on August 16, 2020—just three days before the “Colby Hall incident” 

that putatively forms the basis of Allegation 1—Roe told Doe that her parents were gone and 

invited Doe over to her parent’s house for sex. Roe picked up Doe and they engaged in sex on that 

date.

26. On August 17, 2020, Roe complained to Doe in a text message that her throat was 

sore from the consensual oral sex she gave him the day prior. The text exchange states in part:

Roe: “U hurt my throat”

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 5 of 39 PageID 1287
6

Doe: “thatʼs really sexy”

Roe: “No Iʼm not trying to be sexy it hirts”

Doe: “oh well iʼm sorry” “i didnʼt touch you tho you did all that”

Roe: “I didnʼt say u touched me” “I wasnʼt talking about ur hands stupid”

Doe: “i know but so like you did that to yourself!” “you were going hard”

Roe: “K well”

...

Doe: “youʼre not!” “just take the compliment miss” “yesterday it was really good”

Roe: “Well good for u”

...

Roe: “Thank u for saying that it was good it just makes me

feel embarrassed”

...

Roe: “Never mind we shouldnʼt talk about sex anymore”

27. On August 19, 2020 (the date of the Colby Hall incident), Roe and Doe 

communicated off and on most of the day. Doe messaged Roe and asked if she wanted to “go on 

a friend date” somewhere “quick.”

28. Roe conveyed to Doe that she was not feeling well.

29. Doe offered to bring her ice cream and asked how he could help her. Roe responded, 

“U can watch a show with me.”

30. The two discussed via text message whether they would meet at Doe’s fraternity 

house or at Roe’s dorm room in Colby Hall on TCU’s campus.

31. Roe also told Doe in a text, “wait u don’t think we’re hooking up do u?”

32. Roe expressed concerns about being seen at a fraternity house during sorority

“rush” and the two agreed that Doe would travel to Roe’s dorm room. Roe told Doe that her 

roommates were gone and she would be alone until at least 11 p.m. She also told Doe that she 

would wait to shower until he got to her room.

33. When Doe arrived to Colby Hall, Roe went down to the lobby to let him in and 

escorted him to her room.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 6 of 39 PageID 1288
7

34. When they got to Roe’s room, Roe told Doe that she and her roommate had been 

practicing sex moves. Roe then began practicing sexual positions with Doe on the floor, which led 

Doe to believe that she wanted to have sex. Specifically, while laying on his back on the ground, 

Roe hovered over Doe in a reversed sitting position (facing away from Doe) and “grinded” on 

Doe’s crotch. 

35. Doe occasionally attempted to put his hands on her hips or back, over her clothes,

but Roe would playfully say “no touching.” That dynamic, however, was not entirely new to them

as Roe liked Doe to beg for sex occasionally. 

36. At one point while in Roe’s room, they got up and Roe bent over a desk or another 

piece of furniture and again grinded on Doe’s crotch. 

37. Roe eventually straightened up and Doe began to slowly slide his hand down the 

front of her pants. 

38. Given the grinding she had been doing on Doe’s crotch, he continued to believe

they were going to have sex. 

39. However, when Doe’s hand moved right above Roe’s vagina, Roe told Doe

something to the effect of “we’re not going to hook up today.” In response, Doe removed his hand 

and he never touched her vagina.

40. Doe left the dorm room shortly after their encounter. 

41. Roe falsely alleged that while in her room, Doe inserted his fingers into her vagina 

without her consent (Allegation 1). 

42. Roe, however, cannot describe how Doe was putatively able to insert his fingers

into her vagina, how she was sitting or laying, the position of her legs, what she was wearing or 

any other details of her allegation. That is because her allegation is false.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 7 of 39 PageID 1289
8

43. Roe admits she never yelled for help, attempted to run out of the room, called or 

texted anyone, or pushed Doe’s hand off of her. That is because her allegation is false.

44. Roe’s alleged “proof” for Allegation 1 is contained in a text exchange with Doe

shortly thereafter where Doe apologized for his “behavior” in trying to initiate sex, stated that he 

had no self-control and stated, “I’m one of those aren’t I” in response to a text from Roe that said, 

“I mean self control? Like rapists say the same thing.”

45. Later in the text string, however, Roe said “I mean I’ve [sic] very used to u 

doing that[,] you do that almost everytime [sic],” “I don’t think it’s rape [Doe],” “I just think 

it’s disrespectful and u don’t listen” (collectively, the “Exculpatory Texts”).

46. Hon. Ignazio J. Ruvolo (“Judge Ruvolo”), the Panel Chair and a retired California 

state court judge, excluded the Exculpatory Texts and photographs of Roe and Doe from 

consideration at the Title IX hearing “because they were not shown to be unavailable at the time 

of the investigation ... and because any relevance of the proffered evidence was more prejudicial 

than probative of a material fact ....”

47. To understand why Doe made the putative “admissions” requires one to understand 

the pattern in which Doe handled Roe throughout their almost two-year relationship. 

48. Throughout their entire relationship, Roe was fragile, insecure, unpredictable and 

immature. Even the smallest of slights or disagreements would destabilize Roe and could lead to 

Roe burning herself or forcing herself to purge. 

49. Although Doe too was immature—and admittedly did not know how to handle her 

complex emotions—he loved Roe. Roe’s parents even called Doe her “security blanket.”

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 8 of 39 PageID 1290
9

50. Doe quickly learned he could successfully diffuse or avoid one of Roe’s dramatic 

episodes and make her happy by validating her feelings, apologizing, accepting fault for literally 

anything and admitting to being the “bad guy.”

51. For example, that approach worked on the date of the Colby Hall incident, as 

evidenced in part by their friendly small talk and her appreciation for the groceries Doe brought 

her the following day, August 20, 2020. 

52. Doe has never believed that (1) he is a rapist; (2) lacks self-control; or (3) that he

touched Roe without her consent. Despite irrationally saying untrue things about himself, Doe

never imagined that Roe would use his words against him to cry rape.

53. Roe also relied on texts Doe sent Roe’s best friend in December 2020 or January 

2021—months after the dates of the alleged incidents—where he admitted to being a “bad person.”

D. The Austin Incident (Allegation 2)

54. After the Colby Hall incident, Roe and Doe continued to talk off and on.

55. On or about October 3, 2020, approximately six (6) weeks after the Colby Hall 

incident, Roe and Doe drove to Austin, Texas—separately—because of the University of Texas 

vs. TCU football game. 

56. Neither Doe nor Roe were in Austin as part of any TCU educational program or 

activity and neither actually attended the football game. 

57. That night, after the football game, Doe was at his friend’s apartment when Roe 

called him hysterically crying from her hotel room. Roe was staying in a hotel room with several 

of her sorority sisters and best friends. Roe told Doe “I need you, I really need you” and begged

Doe to pick her up from the hotel. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 9 of 39 PageID 1291
10

58. Roe now claims she called Doe to pick her up because she was having a panic attack 

about being drugged and raped, and she turned to Doe (her prior alleged rapist) to comfort her.

59. Roe initially claimed that Allegation 1 occurred after Allegation 2.

3 In his January 

24, 2022 response to TCU’s Final Investigative Report, Doe submitted text message evidence that 

Allegation 1 occurred before Allegation 2.4 But it was too late for Roe to fix her significant mistake 

about the timing of the Allegations, because her response to TCU’s Final Investigative Report was 

due on January 24, 2022, just like Doe’s. Roe’s mistake was significant because in her January 24, 

2022 response she states:

I was sharing a hotel with those friends and I remember starting to have panic 

attacks about being drugged and raped. I called [Doe] to talk to him and see if 

he could help calm me down. 

60. It is nonsensical and not credible for Roe to claim to have been raped by Doe on 

August 19, 2020, then to call Doe for comfort six (6) weeks later while she was having “panic 

attacks about being drugged and raped.”

61. Doe picked up Roe in an Uber and took her back to Doe’s friend’s apartment. Roe 

was fine, coherent and no longer crying.

62. Neither Doe nor Roe allege they were intoxicated.

63. When they arrived at the apartment, Doe and Roe immediately went into one of the 

bedrooms. While in the bedroom, they had consensual sex and fell asleep until the next morning 

when Doe dropped Roe off back at her hotel. 

3 In her November 30, 2021 written response to TCU’s Preliminary Investigative Report, Roe stated that Allegation 2 

occurred earlier than Allegation 1. She also admitted her mistake during the panel hearing.

4 It was not until Doe independently reviewed over 1,200 pages of text messages in January of 2022 that Doe learned 

the dates of the alleged incidents. At no time prior to the panel hearing did Roe provide the dates on which she claimed 

the Allegations occurred.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 10 of 39 PageID 1292
11

64. Both Roe and Doe admit to having intercourse, but Roe claims she did not consent 

to the intercourse (Allegation 2).

65. The evidence introduced at the panel hearing further revealed that Roe believed 

Doe raped her hundreds, or maybe as many as 1,000 times, and that Roe only wanted to participate 

in sex with Doe about ten percent of the time they had sex. 

E. Communications, Interactions and Consensual Sex after the Austin Incident

66. After the Austin incident, Doe and Roe continued to communicate off and through 

December 8, 2020. They also saw each other at times and continued to engage in sex on at least a 

few occasions. Examples of those communications and interactions are as follows:

Oct. 16, 2020 – Roe texts Doe and says, “I really didnʼt try to be annoying with that photo 

I just have been thinking about us lately just like remembering and I saw that and wanted 

to show u Iʼm really sorry if I hurt u I did not mean to.” 

Oct. 24, 2020 – Roe calls Doe to pick her up and he complies. Afterwards, Roe texts Doe 

and says, “Hi!! I just wanna say Iʼm so sorry I made u come get us earlier, that was actually 

so nice of u to get us” “I really really appreciate it that was very nice” “And Iʼm also sorry 

we were so drunk thatʼs embarrassing but just wanted to say thank u.”

Oct. 25, 2020 – Roe texts Doe and, in summary, says she is sad about Doe, misses Doe 

and is jealous that she saw Doe with another female. Roe states in part, “Like yesterday ... 

I was sitting behind u the whole tailgate and I saw [another girl] the whole time all over u 

and I just like it really felt like to me yʼall knew I was there I was like literally a few feet 

away and like thatʼs great Iʼm happy for u I just like I wouldʼve hoped u wouldnʼt be 

shoving that in my face”; “My feelings were hurt I donʼt think u were trying to make me 

jealous”; and “Iʼm saying it hurt me that I saw that.”

Oct. 30-31, 2020 – Roe peppers Doe with text messages and phone calls and says things 

like “Fuck face,” “Answer my phone” and “R u mad at me.”

Nov. 1, 2020 – Roe peppers Doe with text messages and Snapchat messages. Roe offers to 

pick up Doe and does pick him up in her car. This occurs the day after Roe saw Doe go 

home with the girl from the tailgate mentioned above.

Nov. 2, 2020 – Roe peppers Doe with text messages. She says things like: “if I call u will 

u answer” and “Can u please come get me and [a friend] from pool House we can like hug 

it out and end it on good terms”

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 11 of 39 PageID 1293
12

Nov. 3, 2020 – Roe wants to get back together with Doe and says things like “can I please 

come back to you and can I try and make it happy like it was”; “I want that so bad but you 

left me after 3 days how do I know you wouldnʼt do that again”; “Well do u want me to 

come shark tank duce” (“shark tank duce” was their code for watching a movie and having 

sex); and “I know I just I really like hanging out with u too”

Nov. 4, 2020 – Roe asks Doe to spend her birthday with her, which they did. Pictures show

how happy she appeared to be with Doe. Roe stays with Doe at his fraternity house that 

night and they have consensual sex.

Nov. 5, 2020 – Roe says to Doe, “THANK U SOOOO MUCH FOR MY SWEATER!! 

That was so nice and thoughtful and U hung out with me and talked to me and made me 

feel so special! Thank u!”

Nov. 6, 2020 – Roe sends Doe a video of her and a friend.

Nov. 14, 2020 – Roe texts Doe because she is stuck in a car with “so many people” and a 

guy is “smushing” her.

Nov. 27, 2020 – Roe texts Doe on his birthday and she is very kind to him.

67. Then, on December 8, 2020, Roe sent Doe a message via Snapchat and said “I want 

to fuck you.”

68. Doe rejected Roe’s request for sex by sending her a text message (as opposed to 

Snapchat) and called her out for being hypocritical because her Snapchat messages frequently 

contradicted her text messages. Those text messages from December 8, 2020 are referred to herein 

as the “December 8th Texts.” 

69. Throughout their entire relationship, Roe frequently used Snapchat to communicate 

things to Doe that she did not want others to see. Roe and Doe communicated through Snapchat 

almost as often, if not more often, as they did via text messaging.5

5 Doe engaged a professional to attempt to retrieve all of the Snapchats between Doe and Roe, but the professional 

was unable to successfully retrieve the Snapchats without Roe’s cooperation.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 12 of 39 PageID 1294
13

F. Roe’s Jealousy and Motive to Lie

70. Doe began seeing other women and Roe became very jealous as evidenced in part 

by the text messages above between Roe and Doe on October 25, 2020.

71. After Doe rejected Roe’s “I want to fuck you” message on December 8, 2020, Roe 

and Doe did not have sex again. 

72. Not long thereafter, Doe began dating a new girlfriend (the “Girlfriend”), who is 

also a TCU student. 

73. On January 15, 2021, Doe missed a phone call from Roe. Doe returned her call and 

left Roe a message telling her not to call him again.

74. One night at a bar on West 7th in Fort Worth, in February or March of 2021, Roe 

saw Doe and his Girlfriend sitting on a bench. When they stood up to leave together in an Uber, 

Roe, who had been watching them, rapidly approached the Girlfriend telling her not to go home 

with Doe. Doe and the Girlfriend went home together.

75. The next day Roe’s dad called Doe’s dad and said Doe needed to stay away from 

Roe. Doe was very confused because he had no contact with Roe since the phone message he left 

her in January.

76. A few days later, Doe’s dad received another call from Roe’s dad who accused Doe 

of “stalking” Roe. That phone call occurred one day after Doe dropped off a friend, who was a girl 

and who helped Doe with his Spanish, in the parking lot in front of Roe’s dorm.

77. Doe and his dad perceived the two phone calls from Roe’s dad as veiled threats. 

Accordingly, Doe moved back home and took the Fall 2021 semester off from school in an effort

to avoid any other confrontations with Roe, and in the hopes the entire situation would settle with 

time.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 13 of 39 PageID 1295
14

78. Roe and her best friend (the “Best Friend”) have also targeted the Girlfriend, despite 

the Girlfriend having never met Roe. For example, the Best Friend admitted at the panel hearing 

that she (the Best Friend) yelled “rapist” multiple times to the Girlfriend while at a bar on West 

7th Street in Fort Worth in the fall of 2021. Moreover, during a spring break trip in Cabo San Lucas

in March of 2022 (after the panel hearing), Roe kicked the Girlfriend’s bathroom stall door and 

threw her drink at the stall door while the Girlfriend was in the stall, all while giggling.

79. Instability, jealousy and vengeance are the underpinnings of Roe’s motive to falsely 

accuse Doe of sexually assaulting her.

G. Roe Files a Title IX Complaint

80. Section 5.1.1. of the Code states that reports of misconduct in violation of the Code 

“should be submitted as soon as possible after the incident takes place and under most 

circumstances, should be submitted within one (1) calendar year.”

81. On September 15, 2021—over a year after the date of Allegation 1—Roe submitted 

a report to TCU’s Office of Institutional Equity (“OIE”) and accused Doe of sexually assaulting 

her. TCU investigator Leigh Holland met with Roe for an “initial inquiry.”

82. On October 4, 2021, Roe subsequently filed a “Formal Complaint” with the OIE 

naming Doe as a respondent and alleging sexual misconduct. Roe did not provide additional details 

but referred to her initial report filed on September 15, 2021. 

83. Roe requested a formal resolution according to TCU’s policies on sexual assault.

84. Ms. Holland performed the initial investigation and submitted a preliminary report 

on November 12, 2021. In the preliminary investigative report, Ms. Holland noted that (1) “[Roe] 

declined the initial investigative interview with the investigator. She also declined to give detailed 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 14 of 39 PageID 1296
15

information as it relates to both alleged incidents during her follow-up interview”; and (2) “The 

complainant also refused to provide detailed answers to questions posed in her interview.”

85. Doe and Roe were given an opportunity to submit responses and addenda to the 

preliminary report. 

86. Doe submitted his response on November 30, 2021, through his Title IX advisor. 

He requested that the complaint be dismissed as “there [was] no basis for substantiating [Doe’s] 

allegations without any first party evidence.”

87. Doe also submitted polygraph examinations for consideration because those 

polygraph examinations further evidenced proof of Doe’s innocence. 

88. Roe submitted what she considered her “official response” to the Preliminary 

Investigative Report on November 30, 2021 (the “November 30th Letter”).

89. The November 30th Letter included new alleged “details” of the Allegations that 

Roe previously failed to disclose. Those new “details,” however, severely misstated the facts and 

were false:

a. Roe stated that “after starting college at TCU, [Roe and Doe] still had some social 

interactions,” but in reality Roe and Doe also had consensual sexual intercourse off 

and on during the fall semester of 2020, which she initiated as detailed above.

b. Roe stated that after starting college Doe “acted much angrier and meaner toward 

[her]” but failed to mention the underlying reason, which was that he found out she 

had sex with two other guys and it upset him.

c. Roe stated that “it [was] easier for [her] to tell him to leave [her] alone and that 

[she] didn’t feel comfortable with how he treated [her],” but in reality she initiated 

contact and wanted to be with Doe on several occasions throughout the fall 

semester.

d. Roe stated “[the Austin] incident really scared [her] and [she] realized he was 

capable of actually hurting [her]. Later into the Fall 2020 Semester [Doe] came to 

[her] dorm room (Colby Hall, room 231) one night [and]...sexually assaulted 

[her].” The Austin incident, however, occurred six weeks after the Colby Hall 

incident and as shown above, Roe was not afraid of Doe and she frequently 

initiated (or attempted to initiate) their in-person interactions.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 15 of 39 PageID 1297
16

e. Roe stated that “[the] day leading up to the assault [Allegation 1], [she] was in bed 

because [she] felt really sick’ [her] throat and head were hurting.” Roe failed to 

mention, however, that her throat was sore from the oral sex she gave him just a 

few days prior.

f. Roe stated that “[Doe] asked to come over. Because of [her] past experiences with 

[Doe], [she] was scared of being alone in a room with him, so [she] told him no.”6

In reality, text messages on the day of the Colby Hall incident show that Doe never 

asked to come over, he told her to “think hard” about how he could help her feel 

better to which her responses were “U can watch a show with me,” “U can come” 

and asking him to bring her a humidifier. She also never told him “no.” For the 

same reasons explained above, she was also not afraid of being alone with Doe, like 

when she invited him over for sex to her parent’s house (and picked him up) three 

days earlier on August 16, 2020.

g. Roe stated that “He then told [her] he would get [her] groceries or food and that he 

really wanted to come over,” but in reality the text messages show that Doe brought 

her groceries the next day, on August 20, 2020, and that she was thankful. The texts 

also show that he never told her he “really wanted to come over.”

h. Roe stated that “He continued to persist [on coming over]...,” but in reality, Roe 

invited him over and, again, Doe did not insist on coming over.

i. Roe stated that “[she] told him that [she] did not want to have any sexual contact. 

[She] thought because it was in writing, and [She] told him before he got there, that 

he would listen to [her],” but the reality is that the only thing she put in writing was 

“Wait u donʼt think weʼre hooking up do u” and then proceeded to practice sex 

moves and grind on him when he got to her dorm room.

j. Roe stated that “[she] was traumatized by the assault....” “After this incident, [she]

obviously did not feel safe being around [Doe], and [she] continued to see him on 

and around TCU’s campus.” In reality, however, Roe and Doe continued to see 

each other and have consensual, and intimate, sexual intercourse, examples for 

which are set forth above.

90. Ms. Holland completed and submitted a final investigative report on December 7, 

2021. Ms. Holland indicated in the final investigative report that Roe was not cooperative during 

the investigative process.

91. On December 9, 2021, TCU sent out a “Title IX Conduct Hearing Process Delay 

Notice” because of the end of the Fall 2021 semester and winter break. 

6 Roe made this statement because she incorrectly claimed the Austin incident occurred before the Colby Dorm 

incident.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 16 of 39 PageID 1298
17

92. On January 7, 2022, the Dean of Students Office notified Doe that they scheduled 

a panel hearing for January 28, 2022, via Zoom to hear and determine the outcome of the 

Allegations.

93. Doe and Roe were once again given an opportunity to respond to the final 

investigative report in writing by January 24, 2022. 

94. Doe timely submitted his response to the final investigative report on January 24, 

2022, and included dozens of exhibits which he intended to use as rebuttal evidence.7 Some of the 

exhibits included exculpatory text messages between Roe and Doe as well as photographs of Roe 

and Doe taken after the Austin incident.

95. TCU’s rules do not definitively state any other deadline for providing evidence or 

exhibits to be used at the hearing. Additionally, they do not state any deadline after which evidence 

may not be admitted at the hearing, other than the deadline to respond to the final investigative 

report. Nevertheless, Doe timely submitted all of his evidence prior to the hearing under TCU’s 

policies.

96. Doe met with the Jessica Ledbetter, the Assistant Dean of Students and CoProcedural Chair, and Judge Ruvolo (the Panel Chair and retired California state court judge) on 

January 25, 2022, for a prehearing meeting where Doe explained the significance of the evidence 

he submitted along with his response to the final report. Judge Ruvolo advised Doe that he would 

make a determination on the admissibility of the exhibits at the beginning of the hearing scheduled 

on January 28, 2022. 

7 Doe spent several weeks prior to this time gathering over 1,200 pages of text messages between Roe and Doe. He 

engaged a professional to extract Snapchat messages between Roe and Doe, but without success.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 17 of 39 PageID 1299
18

H. The Hearing

97. Prior to the hearing, Doe raised questions regarding TCU’s jurisdiction to 

investigate matters that occurred off campus (i.e., Austin) under the auspices of Title IX. Doe did 

not contest that TCU could investigate the off-campus allegation, just that it may not do so through 

their Title IX department and further that it may not consolidate the Title IX case with a non-Title 

IX case, or consolidate two cases that do not arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. 

98. Doe and his adviser notified TCU that federal regulations prohibit consolidating 

two incidents that do not arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. See 34 C.F.R. 106.45 

(b) (4).8 As evidenced in part by an email dated January 21, 2022, from Karen Bell Morgan (a 

Dean in the Dean of Students of Students Office), TCU disagreed. Ms. Morgan stated in part, “ we 

believe the alleged incidents do arise from the same ‘facts and circumstances’...the alleged 

incidents are all part of the same relationship between the two parties involved. Separating these 

incidents into two separate, unrelated hearings would not be possible, as they are interconnected 

to one another.”

99. Consequently, TCU moved forward with the hearing on both Allegations as 

scheduled on January 28, 2022. 

100. Section 1.19 of the Code states that Title IX panel members “may include an 

appointed panel chair and/or panelists who are not members of the TCU community to ensure 

fairness for the Complainant and Responding Student and compliance with applicable law.”

101. Nevertheless, TCU’s Dean of Students Office appointed three panelists all of whom 

were members of the TCU community. The hearing panelists included (1) Reece Harty, Clark Hall 

8 “Consolidation of formal complaints. A recipient may consolidate formal complaints as to allegations of sexual 

harassment against more than one respondent, or by more than one complainant against one or more respondents, or 

by one party against the other party, where the allegations of sexual harassment arise out of the same facts or 

circumstances....”

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 18 of 39 PageID 1300
19

Dormitory Director; (2) Dr. Clark Jones, College of Science and Engineering Faculty; and (3) 

Laura Shaw, Director of Student Affairs Business and Operations.

102. The hearing panelists were essentially the “jury” as they were tasked with 

determining the truthfulness of the Allegations and Doe’s fate.

103. Unlike voir dire of a jury panel in a court of law, however, TCU does not have a 

procedure in place that allows the parties involved, like Doe, to determine whether any of the panel 

members hold biases and could be fair and impartial panelists.

104. As explained further below, Doe believes that at least one panel member, Reece 

Harty, harbors and has expressed bias in favor of women and women accusers.

105. At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Ruvolo excluded relevant information, 

including the Exculpatory Texts (“I don’t think it’s rape [Doe],” and others), from the hearing 

panel’s consideration because he determined that the exhibits “were not shown to be unavailable 

at the time of the investigation . . . and because any relevance of the proffered evidence was more 

prejudicial than probative of a material fact.” 

106. The exhibits excluded by Judge Ruvolo were crucial to Doe’s defense. The 

excluded exhibits primarily consisted of text messages, including the Exculpatory Texts and the 

December 8th Texts. However, Judge Ruvolo also excluded significant pictures, including pictures 

of Doe and Roe happily together on her birthday (November 4, 2020), months after Allegation 1 

and weeks after Allegation 2.

107. At TCU, a hearing under Section 5.7 of the Code operates something like an 

informal trial. The parties, Roe and Doe, could make opening statements, cross-examine witnesses, 

give testimony, call witnesses, offer evidence, and make closing arguments.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 19 of 39 PageID 1301
20

108. The panel decided whether a preponderance of the evidence supported a finding of 

responsibility for sexual assault.

109. The Dean of Students provided Doe with a list of witnesses (Roe and the Best 

Friend) who were interviewed as part of the investigation. The Dean of Students also provided 

Doe with documentary evidence gathered over the course of the investigation and the preliminary 

and final investigative reports.

110. The hearing panel was required to apply TCU’s definitions of sexual assault and 

non-consensual sexual intercourse to determine whether Doe was responsible for sexual assault.

111. The Policy is TCU’s policy on sexual misconduct, and it defines “sexual assault”

as: 

“Any sexual act directed against another person without their consent, including 

instances where the person is incapable of giving consent.”

112. The Policy defines “non-consensual sexual intercourse” as:

“For purposes of this policy, [non-consensual sexual intercourse] is the penetration, 

no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus, with any body part or object, or the oral 

penetration by a sex organ of another, without consent. This includes: vaginal or 

anal penetration by a penis, tongue, finger or object, or oral copulation (mouth to 

genital contact).” 

113. On February 2, 2022, Judge Ruvolo, sent out the panel’s Deliberative Report. Judge 

Ruvolo drafted the Deliberative Report, and according to Reece Harty, at no time did the panel 

members review the Deliberative Report despite the fact that it was intended to reflect their 

findings and conclusions.

114. The panel concluded that Doe violated TCU’s policies for Allegation 1 but 

concluded that Doe did not violate TCU’s policies for Allegation 2. 

115. Specifically, the panel found in favor of Doe for Allegation 2 because (1) in the car 

ride on the way back to Fort Worth from Austin the following day, Roe did not say anything to 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 20 of 39 PageID 1302
21

her Best Friend about her interaction with Doe nor did she ask for any assistance; and (2) “after 

this visit to Austin, the two continued to reach out to one another and had consensual sex for some 

time thereafter” including “having intimate sexual contact with [Roe] in early November on or 

near [Roe’s] birthday.”

116. The panel found in favor of Roe for Allegation 1 because of the putative 

“admissions” Doe sent Roe after the Colby Hall incident and messages Doe sent to the Best Friend 

in December 2020 or January 2021. Although Roe testified at the hearing that Doe raped her that 

day (August 19, 2020, Allegation 1), the panel was not allowed to rely on the contemporaneous 

texts from Roe in which she admits that Doe did not rape her that day. That is because those texts 

were improperly excluded as evidence in the hearing. 

117. The logic of the panel, however, makes no sense because the very same reasons the 

panel found in favor of Doe with respect to Allegation 2 should have also been applied in reaching 

their conclusion for Allegation 1. Specifically, Roe failed to mention Allegation 1 to any of her 

friends after the Colby Hall incident even though she saw them that night after Doe left, and the 

two continued to reach out to one another and had consensual sex for some time thereafter, 

including on her birthday and of course, what the panel found to be consensual sex in Allegation 

2. Roe further admitted at the hearing that she and Doe engaged in sex several times after 

Allegation 2. 

I. Disciplinary Process and Outcomes

118. As the penalty, the hearing panel suspended Doe “effective immediately” and stated 

he is eligible to reenroll in classes for the 2023 Maymester, although such enrollment and 

acceptance is not guaranteed. The hearing panel also directed Doe to attend therapy/counseling 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 21 of 39 PageID 1303
22

and complete online Title IX training prior to reenrollment, and further ordered Doe to remain on 

“conduct probation” for the remainder of his time at TCU.

119. It is substantially likely that Doe was found in violation of the Policy with respect 

to Allegation 1 because TCU inappropriately excluded evidence which exonerated him from the 

allegation of rape.

120. It is substantially likely that Doe was found in violation of the Policy with respect 

to Allegation 1 because TCU inappropriately consolidated the two unrelated Allegations in the 

same Title IX hearing in contravention of federal regulations. 

121. Although (1) the panel found Roe lied about Allegation 2 by concluding that Doe 

did not rape her; and (2) Roe lied and severely misled the hearing panel in the November 30th 

Letter as set forth above, neither TCU nor the panel disciplined Roe despite Roe’s violation of 

Section IV. H. of the Policy, which states as follows:

False Information and Complaints.

1. False Information - Providing false information or hindering a 

University investigation are prohibited and can result in disciplinary 

action up to and including termination or expulsion.

2. False Complaints - Any person who knowingly and intentionally 

files a false complaint or files a claim in bad faith under this policy is 

subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from the 

University.

122. TCU’s “Immunity for Sexual Assault Reporting,” Section 5.8.14 of the Code, only 

applies to students who, “in good faith, report to or assist the University in investigating a report 

about, or who testify or otherwise participate in a conduct proceeding regarding, an incident of 

sexual harassment....” (Emphasis added). There is no plausible explanation as to how Roe could 

have lied in good faith.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 22 of 39 PageID 1304
23

123. Doe timely appealed the hearing panel’s decision on Allegation 1 to the Vice 

Chancellor for Student Affairs within three days after the date of the Deliberative Report.9

124. The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs has final authority to reverse or uphold the 

hearing officer’s decision, and the decision by the appellate officer is binding upon all involved. 

125. On April 8, 2022, Ms. Ledbetter emailed Doe the Appeal Determination issued by 

TCU’s Associate Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Michael Russel. The Appeal Determination 

upheld the hearing panel’s decision in all respects.

126. Ms. Ledbetter commanded in her email that “Suspension from TCU is 

immediately in effect upon receipt of this notice.... Because Suspension is effective 

immediately, you are no longer permitted to attend classes, barred from enrollment at TCU 

until the 2023 Maymester, and banned from all TCU property for the duration of your 

Suspension. TCU Police will be contacting you very soon regarding the issuance of a criminal 

trespass order against you as a result of the determination in this case.” (Emphasis original).

127. Alas, Doe’s only recourse is relief from this Court.

J. Gender Bias in Favor of Women and Accusers of Sexual Assault

128. The Assistant Dean of Students and Co-Panel Chair, Jessica Ledbetter, played an 

active role throughout the entire Title IX process. Ms. Ledbetter, however, harbors extreme bias 

against male students as evidenced by her recent (May 2021) doctoral dissertation entitled “Moral 

Identity, Implicit Theory, and Moral Behavior: Untangling the Web of Connected Characteristics 

in Student Conduct” (the “Dissertation”). 

9 After receiving the Deliberative Report, Doe asked Ms. Ledbetter in an email dated February 10, 2022, whether the 

sanctions would be stayed during the appeal process. Ms. Ledbetter failed to directly answer Doe’s question and 

instead cryptically responded, in part, by quoting the Code.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 23 of 39 PageID 1305
24

129. According to her Dissertation, Ms. Ledbetter conducted a study of TCU students 

“to understand the link between a student’s moral mindset, moral identity, and subsequent moral 

decisions, particularly as they pertain to student perspectives about the code of conduct.” That

study purportedly revealed that “[m]ale students tend to have lower moral identity internalization 

and symbolization,” and “being a male student significantly predicted lower moral behavior

intentionality and consciousness, as well as more negative code of conduct policy evaluations.” 

130. In response to the results of the study of male students, Ms. Ledbetter opined in her 

Dissertation as follows:

• “Unfortunately, this was an unsurprising result given some of the available 

academic literature.”

• “[C]ould it be that institutional messaging, both implicit and explicit, resonate 

[sic] more closely with female gender norms?”

• “It is possible that male students simply desire to fit in and be perceived as 

strong in stark contrast with the female norm of care and empathy, which could 

be viewed as weak.” 

• “These male students need context to understand why their behavior is harmful 

to their peers and to their community, in addition to understanding how it 

personally affects them. In other words, to materially change male moral 

behavior, administrators must target moral identity internalization and 

symbolization. Likewise, this programming must be informed by gender norms 

which dictate perceptions about what classifies as appropriate male behavior, 

as previously discussed.”

• “With these findings in mind, the development of targeted programming to 

build male moral identity, behavior awareness, and the comprehension of 

behavioral consequences in male students is more crucial than ever for the 

explicit benefit of those male students individually and to continue prioritizing 

institutional mission fulfillment. This programming is needed regardless of the 

male student’s moral learning disposition, as moral identity internalization 

mediates the relationship between moral mindset and moral behavior 

intentionality and consciousness.”

131. In her Dissertation, Ms. Ledbetter also thanked and revealed her close relationship 

with Michael Russel—who decided Doe’s Appeal—as follows:

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 24 of 39 PageID 1306
25

Dr. Mike Russel: Thank you for always showing such immense confidence in my

abilities and allowing me to try new things, taking on bigger and bigger projects. I 

have learned so much by observing your work firsthand over the past few years and 

grown from our many academic and practice-focused conversations. Your passion 

to support and grow our college students is both inspirational and aspirational. I am 

blessed that you have not only been my supervisor, but also my good friend.

132. Doe wanted to enroll at Southern Methodist University for the Spring 2022 

semester, and was accepted subject to SMU’s receipt of a “letter of good standing” (or similar

statement that Doe was in good standing) from TCU. Had Doe requested that TCU confirm his 

good standing, TCU would have disclosed the pending Title IX investigation. Further, TCU does 

not consider students in good standing upon receiving suspension.

133. In early January of 2022, Doe met with Jeremey Steidl, one of TCU’s Assistant 

Dean of Students, and discussed enrollment at TCU for the Spring 2022 semester. Mr. Steidl 

incorrectly and falsely told Doe that he (Doe) was prohibited from enrolling for the Spring 2022.

Specifically, Mr. Steidl told Doe that it was against TCU’s policy that he be permitted to enroll for 

the Spring semester because of the pending Title IX investigation. After receiving a letter from 

Doe’s attorney, on the date of the deadline to enroll, Doe learned he could in fact enroll at TCU

contrary to Mr. Steidl’s misrepresentations, and he did.

134. In January of 2022, Roe complained to Mr. Steidl that one of Roe’s and Doe’s 

male friends (the “Male Friend”) texted Roe and told her it would not be a good idea for her to 

come to a get together he and his roommates were having at their rent house. Mr. Steidl’s secretary 

contacted the Male Friend and arranged a Zoom meeting between Mr. Steidl and the Male Friend. 

During the Zoom meeting, Mr. Steidl asked the Male Friend why he told Roe it would be a good 

idea if she did not attend his get together. The Male Friend explained that he and his roommates 

had decided they would not drink at their house around underage kids. Without explaining why, 

Mr. Steidl asked the Male Friend to sign a no-contact order in favor of Roe, but the Male Friend 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 25 of 39 PageID 1307
26

elected not to do so. Despite believing the Male Friend’s explanation for why he texted Roe, Mr. 

Steidl unilaterally entered a no-contact order against the Male Friend.

135. At the “Pre-Hearing Meeting” (herein so called) on January 25, 2022, Ms. Ledbetter 

told Doe and his adviser that re-direct and re-cross examination of witnesses was prohibited at the 

hearing because “frankly we worry about re-traumatization of the individuals who are involved.” 

The only individual who would be “retraumatized” is a true victim of a sexual assault.

136. Ms. Ledbetter also stated during the Pre-Hearing Meeting that she and one of the 

panel members, (Reece Harty who is one of Ms. Ledbetter’s friends), went to lunch together earlier 

that day. Ms. Ledbetter stated that Mr. Harty told her he already began a review of the documents 

submitted in the case. In other words, Ms. Ledbetter and Reece Harty discussed the case, yet Doe 

lacked the ability to inquire about the extent of those conversations. 

137. Ms. Ledbetter and Mr. Steidl are both on the Dean of Students staff. As mentioned 

above, the Dean of Students Office selected the hearing panelists from the TCU community. Ms. 

Ledbetter and Mr. Steidl likewise facilitated the Title IX hearing on behalf of TCU and played an 

active role throughout the entire process—they even attended and participated in both days of the 

panel hearing and remained present during the panel’s deliberations (along with Judge Ruvolo).

138. After the panel hearing, Doe discovered that at least one panel member, Reece 

Harty, may have bias in favor of women and women accusers in light of tweets he posted on 

Twitter between September and November of 2018, which is around the same time as Justice 

Kavanaugh’s highly contentious confirmation hearing. For example, on September 29, 2018, Mr. 

Harty retweeted a tweet by Millennial Politics that says, “Sexual assault is not a Republican issue 

nor a Democratic issue. It’s a human issue we all need to take seriously and address”; on September 

30, 2018, Mr. Harty retweeted a tweet by USA Today announcing “landmark legislation that will 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 26 of 39 PageID 1308
27

require all publicly traded companies with headquarters in California to have a least one woman 

on their board of directors by the end of 2019”; on October 5, 2018, Mr. Harty retweeted Time 

Magazine’s tweet, which states “The best way to help women survivors be heard? Elect more 

women” (emphasis added); and on November 27, 2018, Mr. Harty retweeted Time Magazine’s 

tweet and article, which states “How 343 women made French history by talking about their 

abortions.”

139. On February 15, 2022, TCU’s Campus Advocacy, Resource and Education 

(“CARE”) department posted a picture of what appears to be Mr. Harty on its Facebook and 

Instagram pages showing his participation in a “Pancake Palooza” in support of CARE. CARE’s 

“mission is to advocate and support survivors of sexual violence,” and as explained and evidenced 

below, CARE is severely biased in favor of accusers of sexual assault. CARE also provided 

training to each of the three panel members prior to Doe’s Title IX hearing.

140. Again, TCU does not have a voir dire-type procedure in place that would have 

allowed Doe to flush out any gender or accuser bias and whether that bias would impact Mr. 

Harty’s ability to be a fair and impartial panelist.

141. TCU’s website also evidences bias in favor of a complainant. The OIE’s Title IX 

webpage includes a “Complainant Information” tab and a “Respondent Information” tab. The 

Complainant Information page focuses on “survivors” of sexual assault, how they can navigate the 

process, and “Do’s and Don’ts” when helping and listening to a “survivor.” The “Dos and Don’ts”

state as follows:

k. “The first thing you can do to help is to listen and be supportive. Listen without 

judgment. Talking about what happened can help a survivor regain a sense of 

control. Let them guide the conversation and when they choose to talk about it.”

l. “It is often very difficult for survivors to talk about their experiences and disbelief 

can cause additional pain. The fear of not being believed is a real concern for people 

who have experienced an assault or interpersonal violence.”

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 27 of 39 PageID 1309
28

m. “Support the survivor and encourage them to get support. Share the numerous 

options and resources available. If the survivor seeks medical attention or plans to 

file a report, offer to be there. Their decisions to report or seek support is the 

survivor’s alone, but your involvement can be encouraging and positive.”

n. “Be respectful of the survivor and their privacy and confidentiality. If you are not 

a mandatory reporter, it is not your place to share their story without their 

permission, either in conversation or on social media.”

o. “Do not blame a survivor for what happened or make them feel guilty for what 

happened. It is important to understand that no matter what happened, it is not the 

survivor’s fault.”

p. “Do not criticize or judge how a survivor reacted during or after the assault or 

related incident — why they stayed in an abusive relationship, whether they said 

no or not, why they do/do not wish to report the matter. Understand people react 

differently to situations and they need your support even more following a 

traumatic incident.”

q. “Do not force a survivor to do anything they do not want to do. After an assault or 

harassment, survivors often feel powerless. It is important to empower a survivor 

to make their own decisions about what do following an incident, including 

decisions surrounding reporting and seeking help.”

142. The Complainant Information page is found here: 

https://www.tcu.edu/institutional-equity/title-ix/complainant-information.php.

143. The Respondent Information page focuses on persons accused of sexual 

misconduct. It mirrors the Complainant Information page and contains information on how a 

person accused of sexual misconduct can “navigate the process.” It also has a “Do’s and Don’ts” 

section for helping and handling a respondent who has been accused of sexual assault, but that 

section is verbatim of the Complainant Information “Do’s and Don’ts” section listed above—i.e., 

helping “survivors” of sexual assault.

144. The Respondent Information page can be found here: 

https://www.tcu.edu/institutional-equity/title-ix/respondent-information.php.

145. TCU’s CARE department, news, website and social media and its website and 

social media pages further show the female and accuser-biased backdrop against which Title IX 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 28 of 39 PageID 1310
29

proceedings are conducted and the attitude of the TCU community towards alleged sexual assaults, 

which is believe the accuser no matter what!

146. Undoubtedly, universities like TCU should have departments like CARE to support 

victims of sexual assault, but it is the practice of CARE, and therefore, TCU to always believe the 

accuser regardless of the truth. Here are some examples:

r. TCU’s CARE “Welcome” page states in part, “It does not matter when or where 

your trauma occurred....We believe, we care! 

s. CARE’s social media is rife with posts and comments like, “Believe Survivors,” 

“Listen Believe Support” and “We believe you. We C.A.R.E.” 

t. CARE’s social media also portrays men as the aggressors.

u. CARE’s assistant director who is a “Title IX” advocate, Leah Carnahan, says that 

when students go to her about sexual assault, she listens without passing judgment, 

but “[m]ost importantly, she believes them.” 

(https://www.tcu360.com/2019/04/title-ix-advocate-works-to-support-tcusurvivors-of-sexual-assault/)

v. TCU’s Chief Inclusion Officer who was previously the Title IX coordinator, 

Darron Turner, and Ms. Carnahan opposed the new changes to Title IX that ensure 

due process for accused students and which took effect in 2020 under the former 

Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos. (See 

https://www.tcu360.com/2019/07/department-of-educations-title-ix-changescould-impact-tcu-students/). Mr. Turner made the comment in the immediately 

foregoing article that “the single investigator model, which involves one-on-one 

conversations with the survivor, respondent and witnesses, is more accurate 

because of its intimate interpersonal dynamic.” In that same article, Ms. Carnahan 

opposed implementing the new Title IX procedural protections because “the 

outcome of an academic disciplinary system, which deals with access to education, 

is different from the purpose of the criminal justice system.... ‘It wouldn’t stop 

someone living their life free of jail time.’”

147. After years of criticism for being too lax on campus sexual assault, the U.S. 

Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) sent a Dear Colleague Letter (the 

“DCL”) on April 11, 2011,10 to colleges and universities (including TCU) encouraging schools to 

10 Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence, Russlynn Ali, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep't of Educ. (Apr. 4, 2011).

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 29 of 39 PageID 1311
30

become more aggressive in the investigation and adjudication of sexual violence complaints. The 

DCL is addressed in the immediately preceding TCU 360 article.

148. Courts have indicated that the DCL, as well as subsequent guidance and statements 

provided by the OCR, forced colleges and universities to drastically change their prior sexual 

harassment policies out of fear that the Department of Education would pursue violations of Title 

IX that could lead to the revocation of all federal funding. As a result, universities violated accused 

students’ rights under Title IX.11

149. The DCL and its history is the backdrop against which TCU created its Title IX 

processes and departments and ultimately handled Doe’s Title IX proceeding.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1972

150. Plaintiff restates, realleges, and reincorporates by reference all allegations set forth 

in every preceding paragraph as if set forth in this paragraph in full. 

151. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 provides, in relevant part: 

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination 

under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance.

152. TCU is an institution of higher education that receives federal funding. 

153. TCU has promulgated its Title IX policy, among others, to comply with Title IX 

and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. 106.1 et seq., and the Clery Act and its implementing 

regulations, 34 C.F.R. 668.1 et seq.

11 See Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652, 668-69 (7th Cir. 2019) (addressing the history and implications of the DCL and 

finding “[that] letter and accompanying pressure gives John a story about why Purdue might have been motivated to 

discriminate against males accused of sexual assault.”).

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 30 of 39 PageID 1312
31

154. Title IX bars the imposition of university discipline where gender bias is a 

motivating factor in university’s decision to discipline. Plaintiffs attacking a university’s 

disciplinary proceeding on the grounds of gender bias generally fall within two categories, which 

include “erroneous outcome” and “selective enforcement.” Under the “Purdue Standard,” a 

plaintiff can also show a violation of Title IX when the facts raise a plausible inference that the 

university discriminated against the respondent on the basis of sex. Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652, 

667 (7th Cir. 2019).

A. Erroneous Outcome

155. The following facts establish articulable doubt on the accuracy of the outcome of 

the disciplinary proceeding with respect to Allegation 1: 

a. TCU consolidated the two Allegations so that both would be heard and considered 

by the panel at the same time. The two Allegations resulted from completely 

unrelated events and the hearing panel should not have considered Allegation 2 (the 

Austin incident) under the auspices of Title IX. The consolidated hearing resulted 

in the panel “splitting the baby” as it found in favor of Roe for Allegation 1, but not 

for Allegation 2.

b. Judge Ruvolo precluded Doe from submitting rebuttal evidence prior to and during 

the hearing, including without limitation, (1) the Exculpatory Texts whereby Roe 

stated “I don’t think it’s rape [Doe]”; (2) the December 8th Texts where Doe 

pointed out the hypocrisy in Roe’s Snapchat earlier that day that said “I want to 

fuck you”; and (3) photos of Roe and Doe taken after the Colby Hall incident 

showing how unafraid and happy Roe was to be around Doe.

c. TCU misinterpreted and misapplied its own policies regarding the introduction of 

evidence to the detriment of Doe.

d. The panelists’ decision was irrational and they arbitrarily applied evidence to one 

allegation that was equally applicable to the other allegation. 

e. Six weeks after Allegation 1, Roe called her purported rapist (Doe) to pick her up 

from the hotel in Austin where she was safe with her best friends because she was 

having a panic attack about being drugged and raped, and she felt that Doe could 

calm her.

f. Doe failed to receive sufficient notice of all the allegations against him until the 

hearing began despite Section 5.3.13 of the Code.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 31 of 39 PageID 1313
32

g. Roe’s jealousy of and vengeance against Doe because he moved on and began 

dating someone else motivated her to falsely accuse Doe of sexually assaulting her.

h. Roe and her Best Friend retaliated against and harassed Doe’s Girlfriend, including 

when (1) the Best Friend (admittedly) yelled “rapist” to the Girlfriend at a bar in 

the fall of 2021 and (2) Roe kicked the Girlfriend’s bathroom stall door and threw 

her drink at the Girlfriend during spring break of 2022, despite having never met 

each other.

i. It is non-sensical to believe that Doe would lie about digitally penetrating Roe’s 

vagina while at Colby Hall, yet admit to inserting his penis into Roe’s vagina while 

in Austin. 

j. Roe’s November 30th Letter contained major falsities and misrepresentations—

notably her claim that Allegation 1 occurred after Allegation 2—which should have 

established Roe’s lack of credibility.

k. Roe waited over a year after Allegation 1 to file the Title IX complaint.

l. Roe could not explain the details surrounding how Doe putatively inserted his 

fingers into her vagina.

m. Roe claimed that she only wanted to participate in sex with Doe about ten percent 

of the time and Doe raped her hundreds, or maybe as many as 1,000 times.

n. TCU’s Dean of Students Office (which includes Mr. Steidl and Ms. Ledbetter)

selected other staff members at TCU to be the panelists, when they could have 

chosen persons outside of the TCU community as suggested by Section 1.19 of the 

Code in order to ensure “fairness.”

o. CARE, whose mission it is to support victims of sexual assault and to believe all 

complainants, is closely tied to the OIE and Dean of Students and trained the three 

panel members who decided Doe’s case. TCU is conditioned to believe 

complainants and disbelieve respondents like Doe.

p. TCU lacks a voir-dire type process that would have allowed Doe to determine 

whether the hearing panelists had biases or beliefs that could impede their ability 

to be fair and impartial decision makers.

q. Overall, TCU failed to allow a fair and equitable investigation, hearing and 

decision. TCU failed to allow Doe to fully and completely defend himself.

156. Gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding as demonstrated 

by, among other things, the following:

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 32 of 39 PageID 1314
33

a. The procedural irregularities, including the exclusion of evidence that Doe 

submitted along with his response to the final investigative report, including the 

Exculpatory Texts, other text messages and pictures. 

b. The irrationality of the hearing panel’s decision and the inconsistencies in its 

decision.

c. The Dissertation, including Ms. Ledbetter’s role throughout Doe’s Title IX process 

and her significant and close relationship with TCU and others involved in the Title 

IX process. 

d. Jeremy Steidl’s false statement to Doe that he (Doe) could not enroll at TCU 

because of the pending Title IX investigation because TCU’s policy prohibited such 

enrollment. That statement evidences Mr. Steidl’s “guilty until proven innocent” 

mentality, and his favoring Roe.

e. Mr. Steidl’s request to the Male Friend that he (the Male Friend) sign a no-contact 

order, and Mr. Steidl’s subsequent and unilateral entry of a no-contact order against 

the Male Friend.

f. Assistant Dean of Students and Co-Procedural Chair Jessica Ledbetter’s statement 

at the Pre-Hearing Meeting that TCU prohibits re-direct and re-cross examination 

of witnesses because “frankly we worry about re-traumatization of the individuals 

who are involved.” Only a true victim of a sexual assault would be “retraumatized,” and Ms. Ledbetter’s statement assumes all accusers are honest and 

true victims.

g. Ms. Ledbetter’s discussion of Doe’s Title IX case with Reece Harty prior to the 

hearing.

h. TCU’s “Respondent Information” page and “Complainant Information” page focus 

on helping “survivors” of sexual assault. TCU therefore fails to provide equivalent 

resources and information for respondents, including those who have been falsely 

accused of sexual assault.

i. TCU, its CARE department and those involved in Doe’s Title IX investigation and 

hearing harbor and promote the mentality of “believe the woman,” “believe 

survivors” and “never blame the victim.”

j. Panelist Reece Harty’s retweets express bias in favor of women and “survivors” of 

sexual assault, all of which took place during the timeframe of Justice Kavanaugh’s 

divisive and contentious confirmation hearing.

k. Panelist Reece Harty’s apparent involvement with the CARE program.

l. Pursuant to Section 1.19 of the Code, the Dean of Students Office could have 

selected “panelists who are not members of the TCU Community to ensure fairness 

for the Complainant and Responding Student and compliance with applicable law,” 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 33 of 39 PageID 1315
34

but TCU failed to do so. Instead, the Dean of Students office selected three (3) of 

its own “TCU community” members.

m. TCU lacks a voir-dire type process that would have allowed Doe to determine 

whether the hearing panelists had biases or beliefs that could impede their ability 

to be fair and impartial decision makers, and TCU’s CARE department trains the 

panelists prior to a Title IX hearing.

n. TCU disciplined Doe for putatively violating the Policy, but failed to discipline Roe 

for providing false information and filing a false complaint in violation of Section 

IV.H. of the Policy (see further explanation in the following “Selective 

Enforcement” section).

o. TCU’s use of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in a quasi-criminal 

sexual assault case, as opposed to a higher standard (clear and convincing or beyond 

a reasonable doubt), favors an accuser.

p. The DCL and its history is the backdrop against which TCU handled Doe’s Title 

IX proceeding.

B. Selective Enforcement

157. TCU does not publish or make available statistics or information regarding the 

outcome of Title IX violations involving alleged sexual misconduct by a male student against a 

female student or vice versa. 

158. Nevertheless, TCU’s “selective enforcement” is evidenced by the fact that TCU 

disciplined Doe for putatively violating the Policy, but failed to discipline Roe for providing false 

information and filing a false complaint in violation of Section IV.H. of the Policy. In other words, 

TCU selectively enforced the Policy by disciplining Doe but refusing to discipline Roe for her 

violation of the Policy.

159. Section IV.H.1. of the Policy prohibits a person from providing false information, 

and Section IV.H.2. of the Policy prohibits a complainant from filing a false complaint.

160. While under the Policy, providing false information “can result in disciplinary 

action,” a person who knowingly files a false complaint “is subject to disciplinary action up to and 

including dismissal from the University.”

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 34 of 39 PageID 1316
35

161. The hearing panel clearly found that Roe lied about being raped by Doe in Austin—

the hearing panel found that contrary to Roe’s allegation of rape, Roe and Doe engaged in 

consensual sexual intercourse while in Austin. That false claim violates Section IV.H.2. of the 

Policy.

162. The evidence also proved that Doe’s November 30th Letter contained numerous 

blatantly false and misleading statements. That false information violates Section IV.H.1. of the 

Policy.

163. Roe’s lies and providing of misleading and false information could not have been 

done in “good faith,” and thus she was not entitled to immunity from discipline. 

164. Ultimately, TCU treated Roe more favorably than Doe despite her blatant violations 

of the Policy. TCU, at a minimum, could have mandated that she attend counseling and therapy.

165. Defendants’ violation of Doe’s rights has resulted in harm and injury to Doe for 

which Defendants are liable.

C. The Purdue Standard

166. The Purdue Standard has been adopted by several circuit courts of appeals, and the 

Fifth Circuit likewise appears to be considering its adoption currently in Van Overdam v. Tex. 

A&M Univ., Docket No. 21-20185. Accordingly, all of the facts set forth above raise a plausible 

inference that TCU discriminated against Doe on the basis of sex under the Purdue Standard.

COUNT II: BREACH OF CONTRACT

167. Plaintiff restates, realleges, and reincorporates by reference all allegations set forth 

in every preceding paragraph as if set forth in this paragraph in full. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 35 of 39 PageID 1317
36

168. Upon enrolling at TCU, Doe entered into a contract with TCU comprised of the 

policies and procedures promulgated by TCU as applicable to all students in exchange for tuition. 

These policies included, without limitation, the Policy, the Code and the Bill of Rights. 

169. TCU’s policies promised Doe specific, enforceable rights, including but not limited 

to the following:

a. Sections I.1.-2. of the Bill of Rights, which include Doe’s right to access higher 

education at TCU and his right to use all appropriate facilities and services of TCU

b. Section II.1. of the Bill of Rights, which includes Doe’s right to register for and 

attend any class for which he has met the prerequisites.

c. Section 1.19 of the Code seeks to ensure fairness of the panelists in Title IX 

violations.

d. The Code and Policy 1.009 entitle Doe to introduce rebuttal evidence prior to the 

Title IX hearing.

e. Section 5.3.13 of the Code entitles Doe to fair notice of the complaint and 

allegations against him.

f. Generally, the Code and the Policy entitle Doe to a fair, impartial and equitable 

process for alleged Title IX violations.

170. TCU breached each of the express promises that are embodied in its policies and 

contracts with Doe. 

171. Doe has been irreparably harmed by Roe’s allegations against him and the 

subsequent investigation, hearing, and suspension from TCU. He has suffered reputational harm

and emotional distress, his freedom has been restricted and he will suffer diminished income and 

career opportunities as a result of his suspension for which Defendants are liable. 

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

172. A suspension will cause irreparable harm to Doe’s career, educational opportunities 

and goals. A suspension will harm his reputation and cause emotional harm. No legal remedy 

exists for those injuries.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 36 of 39 PageID 1318
37

173. Doe suffers ongoing actual damages as a result of TCU’s unlawful disciplinary 

action in violation of Title IX. THEREFORE, Doe prays that the Court grant the following relief:

a. Declare Defendants liable for breach of contract;

b. Declare Defendants in violation of Title IX;

c. Declare that TCU’s Title IX process resulted in an erroneous outcome and 

gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous outcome;

d. Enter an order enjoining Defendants from suspending Doe from TCU;

e. Order TCU to expunge Doe’s transcript and college record of any reference 

to his wrongful sanctions and finding of his violation of sexual misconduct;

f. Order TCU to issue a letter acknowledging the erroneous outcome of Doe’s 

Title IX process at TCU;

g. Order TCU to institute policies guaranteeing fair and equitable processes 

for accused students;

h. Order TCU to pay all direct and indirect damages suffered by Doe;

i. Order Defendants to pay Doe’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

j. Order such additional legal or equitable relief as the Court finds just and 

improper.

Dated: May 10, 2022

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 37 of 39 PageID 1319
38

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Brian Roark 

Brian Roark (admitted pro hac vice)

State Bar No. 00794536

brian@brianroark.com

BOTSFORD & ROARK

1307 West Avenue

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: (512) 476 – 1900

Fax: (512) 479 – 8040

/s/ Bryan D. Bruner 

Bryan D. Bruner 

State Bar No. 03252475 

bbruner@brunerpc.com 

Lynne B. Frank

State Bar No. 24087215

Lfrank@brunerpc.com

BRUNER & BRUNER, P.C.

3700 W. 7th Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76107 

Telephone: (817) 332-6633 

Facsimile: (817) 332-6619

/s/ H. Dustin Fillmore, III

H. Dustin Fillmore, III

State Bar No. 06996010

dusty@fillmorefirm.com

THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P.

201 Main Street, Suite 801

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Telephone: (817) 332-2351 

Facsimile: (817) 870-1859

ATTORNEYS FOR JOHN DOE

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 38 of 39 PageID 1320
39

Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served on the following counsel 

of record via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure on May 10, 2022.

Alex E. Brakefield (alex.brakefield@huschblackwell.com)

Samuel P. Rajaratnam (sammy.rajaratnam@huschblackwell.com) 

Caidi Davis (caidi.davis@huschblackwell.com) 

Scott D. Schneider (scott.schneider@huschblackwell.com) 

HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP

1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, Texas 75201

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

/s/ Brian Roark

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 43 Filed 05/10/22 Page 39 of 39 PageID 1321