Page 1 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

ALAN C. MILSTEIN (Pro Hac Vice)

SHERMAN, SILVERSTEIN, KOHL, ROSE & PODOLSKY, P.A.

308 Harper Drive, Suite 200

Moorestown, NJ 08057

(856) 662-0700

(856) 488-4744 Fax

amilstein@shermansilverstein.com

MARIANNE DUGAN (OSB No. 932563)

259 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 200D

Eugene, OR 97401

(541) 338-7072

(866) 650-5213 Fax

mdugan@mdugan.com

ALEX SPIRO (Pro Hac Vice)

Brafman & Associates, P.C.

767 Third Avenue, 26th Fl

New York, NY 10017

(212) 750-7800

(212) 750-3906 Fax

BRIAN MICHAELS, P.C. (OSB No. 925607)

259 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 300D

Eugene, OR 97401

(541) 687-0578

(541) 686-2137 Fax

brian@brianmichaelslaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

BRANDON AUSTIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; SANDY

WEINTRAUB; CHICORA MARTIN;

ROBIN HOLMES; and MICHAEL R.

GOTTFREDSON, all in their individual

capacities only,

 Defendants.

 Case No. 6:15-cv-02257-MC (Lead Case)

 Case No. 6:16-cv-00647-MC (Member Case)

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 50
Page 2 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

DOMINIC ARTIS and 

DAMYEAN DOTSON,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; SANDY

WEINTRAUB; CHICORA MARTIN;

ROBIN HOLMES; and MICHAEL R.

GOTTFREDSON, all in their individual

capacities only,

 Defendants.

Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, by way of Complaint against Defendants University of 

Oregon; Sandy Weintraub; Chicora Martin; Robin Holmes; and Michael R. Gottfredson, hereby 

alleges as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this removed action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, as it arises out of the laws of the United States, including Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“Title IX”).

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides in pertinent part as follows: “in any civil action 

of which the district Courts have original jurisdiction, the district Courts shall have supplemental 

jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original 

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United 

States Constitution.”

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b), as the Defendants reside within this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events 

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district.

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 50
Page 3 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

THE PARTIES 

4. Plaintiffs are individuals who were formerly matriculated students at the University 

of Oregon (when abbreviated, "University"), each of whom were receiving scholarships as starting 

basketball players.

5. Defendant University is, and was at all relevant times, an institution of higher 

education chartered and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Oregon, located in Eugene, 

Oregon. 

6. Defendant Sandy Weintraub is, and was at all relevant times, the Director of 

Student Conduct & Community Standards at the University. Mr. Weintraub can be served with 

process at the Office of the Dean of Students, 164 Oregon Hall, Eugene, OR 97403. Mr. Weintraub 

is being sued in his individual capacity only.

7. Defendant Chicora Martin was, at all relevant times, the Assistant Dean of Students 

at the Universit. Ms. Martin can be served with process at Mills College, Cowell Building, 5000 

MacArthur Blvd, Oakland, CA 94613. Ms. Martin is being sued in her individual capacity only.

8. Defendant Robin Holmes is, and was at all relevant times, Vice President for 

Student Life at the Universit. Dr. Holmes can be served with process at Division of Student Life, 

5216 University of Oregon, 164 Oregon Hall, Eugene, OR 97403. Dr. Holmes is being sued in her 

individual capacity only.

9. Defendant Michael R. Gottfredson was the President of the University from August 

1, 2012, through approximately August 6, 2014. Dr. Gottfredson can be served with process at UC 

Irvine School of Social Ecology, 5300 Social and Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA 92697. 

Dr. Gottfredson is being sued in his individual capacity only.

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 50
Page 4 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

FACTS

I.

10. Dominic Artis went to Salesian High School in Richmond CA until 11th grade. 

They won a state championship his freshman year (2009) and went to the state championship his 

junior year. His junior year (2011) he also won Division IV Player of the Year in California. He 

went to Findlay Prep High School in Henderson, NV for his senior year. They won the national 

championship that year (2012). For the Nationally Televised Hoop Hall Classic he received ‘player 

of the game.’ And for the nationally televised game against Bishop Gorman he received ‘most 

inspirational.’ He was also ranked 62nd on the ESPN 100 (#5 in state) coming out of high school 

and he was ranked the #8 point guard in the country and #1 in California as well. Mr. Artis was 

#32 in some mock drafts as a freshman in college. He was also invited to, and attended, the Darron 

Williams Nike Skills camp his senior year of high-school, and the Kyrie Irving Skills camp his 

freshman year of college which was composed of the top 20 point guards in college at the time.

11. Damyean Dotson went to Jack Yates High School, a top basketball school in Texas. 

As a junior, he was recognized as the District 21 Newcomer of the Year and an All-District 

performer. In his senior season, he was captain of the team averaging 21 points and 5 rebounds per 

game which led to him being one of the top ranked players in Houston and leading his team to two 

state finals. The Houston Chronicle named him 2012 Greater Houston Player of the Year and he 

was selected All-District 21, All-Region 3 and 4A All-State after his impressive senior year. Mr. 

Dotson was slated for a Shooting Guard position, having been recruited at Oregon, Colorado, 

George Town, Texas Tech, Dayton, Arkansas, Texas Southern, Texas A&M. In his freshmen 

season at Oregon he was named to the 2013 Kyle Macy Freshman All-American Team, AllTournament team and Pac-12 Freshman team and was invited to the Kevin Durant and Lebron 

James basketball camp and well as a finalist on the Team USA U19 Squad. Had the actions on the 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 50
Page 5 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

part of the Defendants not occurred, he would currently be an NBA player making millions of 

dollars per year.

12. During his high school basketball career at Imhotep Institute Charter High School 

in Philadelphia (“Imhotep”), Plaintiff Brandon Austin helped Imhotep win three straight 

Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association titles. As one of the top fifty or so prospects in 

the nation, Mr. Austin was recruited by multiple universities, and received offers to play basketball 

at multiple universities, and ultimately chose to attend Providence College (“Providence”) and 

play basketball for the Providence Friars. During the Fall 2013 semester, Mr. Austin was 

suspended from the basketball team for thirty days. Providence pleaded with Mr. Austin to stay, 

but Mr. Austin was recruited by the University, and chose to transfer from Providence to Oregon. 

Prior to the Spring 2014 Semester, Mr. Austin matriculated at Oregon and became a member of 

the Oregon Ducks men’s college basketball team (“Ducks”), which competes at the NCAA 

Division I level and is a member of the Pacific-12 Conference.1In order to intice Mr. Austin to 

attend Oregon and play for the Ducks, Oregon provided Mr. Austin with an athletic scholarship.

13. As one of the top hundred or so high school basketball prospects in the nation, each 

Plaintiff received offers to play basketball at multiple universities, and ultimately chose to attend 

Oregon.

14. In order to intice Plaintiffs to attend Oregon, Oregon provided Plaintiffs with 

athletic scholarships.

15. The athletic scholarships contained both express terms and an implied covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing.

16. Plaintiffs had the objectively reasonable expectation, based upon the express and 

implied terms of the contractual relationship governing the athletic scholarship, that the University 

 

1 Due to NCAA transfer rules, Mr. Austin was required to sit out of competition for one

year. 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 50
Page 6 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

would renew their scholarships, and not act so as to deprive them of the fruits of the scholarship, 

and otherwise act in good faith vis-à-vis their scholarships. Each scholarship contained this 

language of agreement: 

“This assistance will be considered for renewal during subsequent periods of attendance as 

long as you are a student in good standing, maintain normal progress toward graduation 

and are in compliance with all eligibility requirements of this institution, the Pac- 12 

Conference and the NCAA. This assistance may be changed or terminated only in 

accordance with the legislation of the NCAA, principal details of which appear on the back 

of this statement.” (Emphasis added)

17. Plaintiffs attended an off-campus party on or around March 8, 2014.

18. After about an hour and a half, a female student approached Plaintiffs and began 

“twerking” for them.

19. Subsequently, the female student went into a bathroom with Mr. Artis and Mr. 

Dotson and Mr. Austin and initiated consensual sexual activity. The individuals then left the 

bathroom together. 

20. Numerous individuals at the party witnessed the female student interacting with the 

basketball players both before and after the sexual activity in the bathroom, and would have

testified under oath that the female student gave absolutely no indication that she was sexually 

assaulted, or even upset, and insisted on remaining with the basketball players even after they left 

the bathroom. 

21. Later in the evening, the female student chose to return to the apartment of one of 

the basketball players, along with all three basketball players. The female student was laughing 

and joking, even as she left the party with Plaintiffs, and entered the taxi-cab with them. At least 

one female witness would have testified under oath she offered the female student a ride, which 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 50
Page 7 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

she declined. At no time did this witness observe any reluctance on the part of the female student, 

nor any aggression on the part of Plaintiffs.

22. Upon arrival, she stated that she needed to get into something comfortable. 

23. Subsequently, the student voluntarily took her clothes off, whereupon she

voluntarily engaged in “group” sexual activity with the other players. 

24. At one point, the female student became teary-eyed, at which point the players 

chose to immediately cease any sexual activity. Soon after, she was again laughing and joking. 

25. The female student chose to stay overnight at the apartment, and had sexual 

intercourse with one of the other players after waking up in the morning. 

26. Thereafter, the player sent the female student home in a cab, and she sent a text 

message stating “thanks for getting me home.”

27. At no point did the female student appear to be intoxicated.

28. At no point did the female student say “no” about any sexual activity, even when 

she became teary-eyed (after which, in any event, the sexual activity immediately ceased).

29. The female student expressed verbal consent and/or gave unmistakable physical 

indications of her desire to participate in sexual contact with the young men at the times they were 

engaged in sexual conduct.

II.

30. Within a day or two, however, the female student began making false, scandalous, 

and malicious accusations about all three basketball players, including the utterly false accusation 

that the players dragged her into the bathroom and assaulted her; the utterly false accusation that 

the players wrestled her into a car, forced her to get drunk, and drove her to the apartment; and the 

utterly false accusation that she was raped at the apartment. 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 50
Page 8 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

31. Thereafter, the accuser made numerous inconsistent statements to the Eugene 

Police Department regarding her sobriety, the events and conversations leading up to the sexual 

conduct, and the actual actions, words, and behavior of those involved during sexual contact. 

32. When the University learned that Mr. Austin had been accused of rape, Defendant

Chicora Martin suspended Plaintiffs on an “emergency” basis, and scheduled an “emergency”

hearing to expel them.

33. That emergency suspension was then modified to allow them to attend classes, and 

practice.

34. On April 14, 2014, the Lane County District Attorney (“District Attorney”) 

determined that she would not be pressing charges against Mr. Austin or any of the basketball 

players “because the conflicting statements and actions by the victim make this case unprovable 

as a criminal case.” (Emphasis added.)

35. In or around late April, the Oregonian published the police report that the female 

student had made. 

36. The next evening, presumably in response to the publication of the police report, 

the District Attorney’s office issued a lengthy document outlining numerous weaknesses in the 

prosecution’s case, as well as numerous inconsistencies in the accuser’s statements, and 

concluding that those weaknesses presented “an insurmountable barrier to prosecution.”

37. The District Attorney’s office concluded, in pertinent part, as follows:

A) Although the alleged victim reports being impaired by alcohol 

prior to any sexual contact, there is no evidence, from her or from 

others, that suggests she had enough to drink to become 

substantially impaired prior to the first two sexual encounters in the 

bathroom. There is also no independent behavioral evidence that 

the victim appeared significantly impaired: nobody reports her 

having slurred speech, difficulty walking or any other symptom of 

impairment from intoxication at any point in the evening.

B) Friends and associates of the alleged victim describe her as 

friendly and flirtations, both before and after the first and second 

alleged assaults in the party-house bathroom. Moreover, all 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 50
Page 9 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

witnesses agree the alleged victim had the opportunity to leave the 

party, or at least ask for help, after the first series of sexual assaults.

Friends and others report her “walking and talking fine” both before 

and after both sex-in-the-bathroom events.

C) The alleged victim recalls extensive detail about all aspects of the 

evening, including the timing, order of events - even the exact 

amount of the cab fare and her decision to have another drink of 

alcohol during the ride to the alleged assailants’ residents, and most 

of the detail is consistent with the events reported by others (so she 

does not appear to have been affected to the point of perception or 

memory impairment. Similarly, there’s no evidence she was ever 

unconscious during the sex acts, nor is there any evidence she was 

ever impaired to the point where it adversely effected her balance or 

stability.)

D) The alleged assailants stopped the sex acts several times - first 

when the alleged victim asked for a drink of water, next when the 

alleged victim said she “had to go” and, finally, at the second 

residence, when the alleged victim started crying (the first point at 

which suspects claim they realized she wasn’t “in to it”).

E) Victim returned to isolated locations with her alleged assailants 

repeatedly, although she had friends nearby and she was in a 

crowded party.

F) Telephone calls between the alleged victim and alleged assailants 

were recorded surreptitiously. The contents of those conversations 

are consistent with suspect’s version of consensual sex, or at least 

their belief it was consensual sex.)

G) Friends of the alleged victim say she did not appear to be 

impaired by alcohol at any time during the evening.

H) Alleged victim had consensual sex with one of the suspects the 

morning after the alleged assaults and, later the same day, she had 

sex with another friend.

I) The crimes are reported by victim’s father days after the alleged 

assaults took place and alleged victim is angered by the reporting 

(because of timing).

J) Alleged victim indicated a desire to only have her assailants’ 

“wrists slapped”, not ruin their lives.

K) Assailant interviews with police are consistent with recording 

made without their knowledge and the statements of other witnesses

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 50
Page 10 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

None of the above would be individually inexplicable, but 

collectively, and in the absence of additional evidence, they provide 

an insurmountable barrier to prosecution.

38. This information was known to the Defendants well prior to May 9, 2014.

39. The “logical nexus” connecting the District Attorney’s failure to prosecute the 

basketball players with the Defendants’ sex/gender bias includes, but is not limited to, the 

following.

40. Following the publication of the police reports by the Oregonian and the District 

Attorney’s statement explaining why the basketball players were not prosecuted, widespread 

protests occurred on the University’s campus, both generally and outside Dr. Gottfredson’s office

in Johnson Hall (the main administration building at the Univeristy), attempting to pressure the 

University into taking action against the male basketball players on the basis of their sex/gender. 

41. On one occasion, protesters held signs with such slogans as “It’s Not OK to Slut 

Shame,” “I Live in a Rape Culture,” “UO: Expel Rapists,” “Dana Altman $25K Bonus for Ignoring 

Rape,” “Trust Survivors,” and “Passes on a Court Free Pass from the Courts.” An Associated Press 

photo documented the scene:

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 50
Page 11 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

42. The protests received extensive press coverage in the local and national media, and 

cast the University and its employees, including Dr. Gottfredson, in a negative light for failing to 

punish the basketball players, and the University and its employees, including Dr. Gottfredson, 

were aware of the foregoing. 

43. These signs, using extremely loaded phrases such as “slut shame” (a colloquial 

phrase widely understood to mean criticizing or punishing a woman for engaging in sexual 

activity) and “rape culture” (another widely understood term “that was coined by feminists in the 

United States in the 1970’s ... designed to show the ways in which society blamed victims of 

sexual assault and normalized male sexual violence”)2plainly and unambiguously suggested that 

the University had declined to punish the male students accused of rape, solely on the basis of their 

sex/gender.

44. These signs and protests had the actual effect of pressuring the University to take 

punitive action against the male basketball players solely on the basis of their sex/gender

(notwithstanding the fact that the accuser was plainly not telling the truth, and the male basketball 

players had plainly not engaged in any culpable conduct) in an effort to combat widespread public 

perception, both locally and nationally, that the University was not tough enough on male 

individuals or male athletes accused of sexual assault. 

45. Additionally, a psychology professor at the University, Jennifer J. Freyd, Ph.D., 

had “published a study in 2013 based on a survey of UO [University of Oregon] students 

examining whether an institution’s failure to prevent sexual assault or respond supportively could 

exacerbate a survivor’s trauma. The study found that when women experienced a phenomenon 

Freyd calls institutional betrayal, they reported increased levels of anxiety, suggesting that 

‘institutions have the power to cause additional harm to survivors.’”

3

 

 

2 See http://www.wavaw.ca/what-is-rape-culture/ (last visited September 13, 2016).

3 See http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/us/whistleblowers-campus-rape-ou/ (last visited 

September 13, 2016) (emphasis added). 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 50
Page 12 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

46. Prior to May 9, 2014, Dr. Freyd repeatedly spoke out against the University’s 

handling of the situation involving the basketball players, and a protest led by and/or publicly 

endorsed by Dr. Freyd occurred at noon on May 8, 2014.

47. At 11:00 a.m. on May 9, 2014, Defendant Michael R. Gottfredson in effect imposed 

discipline upon Plaintiffs without due process, solely on the basis of their sex/gender, by holding 

a press conference and making a public statement condemning the other basketball players, even 

though the District Attorney had declined to prosecute them and the University had not started 

much less concluded the hearing process. 

48. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, despite the fact that the District 

Attorney had cast significant doubt on whether the accuser was telling the truth, Dr. Gottfredson 

stated, “The type of behavior in the police report released this week is utterly unacceptable and 

will not be tolerated,” and further stated, “I know it’s frustrating, and we would like to say more, 

but we are not going to violate the laws that are in place to protect students’ privacy or the rights 

of our students – especially the survivor.” (Italics in original University transcript.)

49. Evidencing that the University had prejudged Plaintiffs’ guilt, and done so on the 

basis of their sex/gender, Dr. Gottfredson’s statement included the conclusion that the female 

accuser was a “survivor” (“survivor” being a loaded word invoking sex/gender, in the context now 

pled and described above), the statement that “as a father, I was appalled at what I read” (“as a 

father” being loaded code invoking sex/gender, in the context now pled and described above), and 

the statement that Plaintiffs would “not be playing basketball at Oregon again.” 

50. Dr. Gottfredson’s statements were grounded in sexism and/or gender bias, and 

constituted a clear statement on behalf of the University that represented its position in the matter, 

and directly controlled and/or influenced the actions of all other individuals who acted on behalf 

of the University and/or as its actual or apparent agents in taking action against Mr. Austin.

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 50
Page 13 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

51. In addition, and/or in the alternative, the prior and subsequent actions of the 

University and the individual Defendants with regard to Plaintiffs were all taken in response to 

internal and external compliants and protests that the University was not taking strong enough 

actions against males in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct by female students against 

male students at the University.

52. As the Second Circuit observed in Doe v. Columbia University, Docket No. 15-

1536, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13773 (2d Cir. July 29, 2016), in ruling that the plaintiff therein had 

stated a plausible claim under Title IX:

The Complaint alleges that, having been severely criticized in the 

student body and in the public press for toleration of sexual assault 

of female students, Columbia was motivated in this instance to 

accept the female’s accusation ofsexual assault and reject the male’s 

claim of consent, so as to show the student body and the public that 

the University is serious about protecting female students from 

sexual assault by male students—especially varsity athletes. There 

is nothing implausible or unreasonable about the Complaint’s 

suggested inference that the panel adopted a biased stance in favor 

of the accusing female and against the defending male varsity athlete 

in order to avoid further fanning the criticisms that Columbia turned 

a blind eye to such assaults. ... It is worth noting furthermore that 

the possible motivations mentioned by the district Court as more 

plausible than sex discrimination, including a fear of negative 

publicity or of Title IX liability, are not necessarily, as the district 

Court characterized them, lawful motivations distinct from sex bias. 

A Defendant is not excused from liability for discrimination because 

the discriminatory motivation does not result from a discriminatory 

heart, but rather from a desire to avoid practical disadvantages that 

might result from unbiased action. A covered university that adopts, 

even temporarily, a policy of bias favoring one sex over the other in 

a disciplinary dispute, doing so in order to avoid liability or bad 

publicity, has practiced sex discrimination, notwithstanding that the 

motive for the discrimination did not come from ingrained or 

permanent bias against that particular sex.

53. Here, as in the Doe v. Columbia case, the University “was motivated in this instance 

to accept the female’s accusation of sexual assault and reject the male’s claim of consent, so as to 

show the student body and the public that the University is serious about protecting female students 

from sexual assault by male students—especially varsity athletes.”

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 13 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 13 of 50
Page 14 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

54. At a proximate point in time, Ms. Martin again suspended Plaintiffs.

55. Ms. Martin subsequently modified the suspensions of Mr. Artis and Mr. Dotson, 

but refused to modify Mr. Austin’s suspension. (Mr. Austin later learned that Ms. Martin refused 

to modify Mr. Austin’s suspension because he exercised his Miranda rights during the police 

investigation.)

56. Almost concurrently, a University student came forward and told a University 

investigator that she personally interacted with the female student throughout the evening in 

question, the female student was not at all intoxicated, and the female student insisted on going 

home with the basketball players, to the point of refusing to leave with her friends.

57. Meanwhile, on or around June 5, 2014, the accuser published an opinion piece in a

newspaper criticizing the University for its handling of the situation, putting further internal 

pressure on the University to punish Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex/gender, and regardless of 

actual culpability. 

III.

58. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs had a recognized property interest in (among other 

things) their status as an admitted, matriculated University student in good standing; their interest 

in pursuing public higher education and intercollegiate athletic participation; and the economic 

benefit in the form of his existing scholarship, a future scholarship at another Division I school, or

a future contract with an NBA team.

4

59. Additionally, at all relevant times, Plaintiffs also had a recognized liberty interest

in (among other things) being in good standing at the University, and being free from the stigma

associated with being suspended for disciplinary reasons. Due process protection “is particularly 

necessary when, as here, the governmental action may damage the individual’s standing in the 

 

4 We recognize that this Court’s prior ruling [Document No. 36] held that the allegations 

in this section did not give rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We respectfully reserve the 

right to challenge this Court’s conclusions on appeal. 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 14 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 14 of 50
Page 15 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

community, academic or general, or may impose ‘a stigma or other disability that foreclose[s] his 

freedom to take advantage’ of other educational or future employment opportunities.” See, e.g., 

Marin v. University of Puerto Rico, 377 F. Supp. 613, 622-23 (D.P.R. 1974) (quoting Board of 

Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972)); accord Albert v. Carovano, 824 F.2d 1333, 1339 n.6 

(2d Cir. 1987) (noting that “at a minimum, the students’ protected liberty interest is at stake 

because of the ‘stigma’ attached to suspension from college for disciplinary reasons”); cf.

Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971).

60. At all relevant times, it was clearly established that, given the seriousness of the 

alleged infraction, the possible consequences to Plaintiffs, and the degree of sanction or penalty 

sought to be imposed, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution’s guarantee of procedural 

and substantive due process, and the Oregon Revised Statutes, required the Defendants to provide 

Plaintiffs with the right to representation by counsel, testimony of witnesses under oath, 

depositions, issuance of subpoenas, cross-examination of witnesses, a fundamentally fair 

proceeding, and other due process protections.

61. Plaintiffs’ Counsel, however, were presented with two choices: (1) a “panel 

hearing” at which the University would not provide most or all of the foregoing due process 

protections, except for representation by counsel; or (2) an “administrative conference” at which 

the University would not provide most or all of the foregoing due process protections, except for 

representation by counsel. 

62. After the “panel hearing” was scheduled, counsel for the basketball players

requested a “contested case hearing” which complies with the due process requirements set forth 

in ORS 351.088, and ORS 183.413-.497 and 183.502, including representation by counsel (ORS 

183.417(1)), testimony of witnesses under oath (ORS 183.417(7)), depositions (ORS 183.425), 

issuance of subpoenas by a party (ORS 183.440), and cross-examination of witnesses (ORS 

183.450(3)). 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 15 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 15 of 50
Page 16 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

63. Among other things, Counsel further made clear that, in order to present a defense, 

they would need to subpoena the numerous witnesses who would testify that the female student 

gave absolutely no indication that she was sexually assaulted, or even upset, and insisted on 

remaining with the basketball players even after they left the bathroom, and two individuals with 

whom the female student had chosen to have sex after just meeting them, evidencing her 

willingness to engage in sexual activity with individuals who she just met.

64. The University and its representatives, however, failed to even directly respond to 

the request of Mr. Austin’s counsel for a contested case hearing.

65. Based upon the foregoing, it was clear to Plaintiffs’ counsel that the University and 

its representatives were not going to grant her request for a contested case hearing.

66. Ultimately, as the University was only providing two options, neither of which 

provided the requisite due process, and the University was requiring Plaintiffs to choose between 

one of the two options—the “administrative conference” option. Counsel was not asked to sign, 

and did not sign, a waiver of due process rights, and would never have signed such a waiver. 

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsels never waived their due process rights by choosing the 

“administrative conference” option over the “panel hearing” option, neither of which provided the 

due process protections that Plaintiffs’ counsels had expressly requested.

67. The “administrative conference” turned out to be nothing less than an 

unconstitutional “kangaroo court” scenario of the very worst order, in which Plaintiffs were

deprived of the foregoing rights, and not even provided with a basic opportunity to properly 

respond to all information provided, and to contact and call all relevant and necessary witnesses.

68. The conference was ultimately scheduled for May 30, 2014. 

69. Defendant Sandy Weintraub ruled against Plaintiffs, suspending them from the 

University from four to ten years, long enough for the removal to be the functional equivalent of 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 16 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 16 of 50
Page 17 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

an expulsion from the University, and refused to provide due process to Plaintiffs generally and in 

the manner described in detail above.

70. Defendant Robin Holmes was charged with the responsibility of hearing an appeal.

71. Dr. Holmes, however, refused to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for an appeal and 

did not return multiple phone calls from counsel, in violation of their right to procedural and 

substantive due process.

72. Plaintiffs were not required to take an administrative appeal in order to bring this 

Court action.

73. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, neither Title IX nor the state-law 

causes of action alleged herein require the exhaustion of administrative remedies, if any, before 

bringing a Court action.

74. In addition, Dr. Holmes’ refusal to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for an appeal 

relieve Plaintiffs of any possible obligation to bring an administrative appeal, an administrative 

appeal would have been futile, and the Defendants are estopped from asserting that Plaintiffs were

required to bring an administrative appeal.

75. Additionally, the Defendants’ actions before the hearing process, during the hearing 

process, and after the hearing process were motivated in whole or large part by the fact that 

Plaintiffs are male and the accuser is a female. 

76. Attached to this complaint are attorney affidavits from the two attorneys who 

represented the Plaintiffs, Greg Veralrud (Exhibit #1), and Laura Fine Moro (Exhibit #2). The 

affidavits of Lissa Casey, (Exhibit #3) who has represented numerous clients in front of the 

University, is attached, as well as Brian Michaels (Exhibit #4). 

77. Greg Veralrud represented Dominic Artis throughout his administrative hearing 

with the University. His affidavit (Exhibit #1) states that he made a request for the report of the 

investigation and recalls that the report contained references to interviews with other students who 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 17 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 17 of 50
Page 18 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

were with the complainant the night she alleges she was assaulted. He recalls that the the witnesses 

provided statements indicating that the complainant was sober and willing to leave with the three 

Plaintiffs. After viewing the investigative report, Mr. Veralrud was concerned that there would be 

significant pressure on the University to make its own findings and he advised Mr. Artis not to 

waive a panel hearing. Mr. Veralrud’s affidavit states:

Subsequent to that, we received information from the university that 

if Mr. Artis were to waive the panel hearing and proceed based upon 

an administrative review by Mr. Weintraub that did not require the 

presence of the complaining witness, they would agree that there 

would be no expulsion and that the sanction would be limited to a 

suspension of some years.

This wouldn’t necessarily be a disqualifying factor. I was also 

concerned about the university’s counsel’s lack of willingness to 

exercise its subpoena power in conjunction with the panel hearing 

to bring forth witnesses who contradicted the complainant and 

corroborated Mr. Artis with respect to the consensual nature of the 

encounter. Without subpoena, we would not be able to get the 

presence of the Eugene police officer who investigated the case and 

took statements from the complainant, the three basketball players 

accused, various acquaintances and companions of the complainant, 

and the cab driver who picked up the three basketball players and 

the complaining witness and took them from the party to Mr. Artis' 

and Mr. Dotson's apartment (the statement of the cab driver to our 

investigator was that the complainant was in a talkative mood, did 

not seem at all afraid or apprehensive and he described her as 

seeming very pleased to be in the company of three University of 

Oregon basketball players).

See Exhibit #1. 

78. Laura Fine Moro represented Mr. Brandon Austin in connection with the sexual 

allegation charges. She has represented hundreds of University students in various matters, 

including allegations of University Student Conduct Code Violations. In her affidavit (Exhibit #2), 

she recalls representing one female student at the University who was alleged to have commited 

sexual misconduct. Ms. Fine Moro states:

Her alleged conduct at issue consisted of the following:

She had a loud verbal fight with her boyfriend in her apartment;

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 18 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 18 of 50
Page 19 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

She refused to let him leave her apartment by exerting physical force 

against him which resulting in scratches and abrasions on his skin; 

and 

When he finally left the apartment, she grabbed a large kitchen knife 

and ran after him. She held the knife above her head in an aggressive 

manner. 

Her boyfriend reported that he feared for his life when he called 911 

for help. Police arrived and she was arrested and lodged in the Lane 

County Jail on the Charge of Meancing as Domestive 

Violence(Class A Misdemeanor). She ultimately pleaded guilty to 

Reckless Endangerment (Class A Misdemeanor) and 

Harassment(Class B misdemeanor). She was placed on probation, 

given a jail sentence, and she was ordered to complete a mental 

health evaluation and any required treatment. 

I assisted her through the Title IX investigation interview and 

disclosed the outcome of her criminal case to the investigator.

Following that, no further action was taken by the UO that I am 

aware of. 

See Exhibit #2 (emphasis added). 

79. She also swears in her affidavit:

I have never had a case personally or heard through professional 

peers of a case where an allegation of sexual misconduct made by a 

female against a male has been unfounded by Title IX and by the 

UO. In other words, in my experience and in the experience of my 

peers as reported to me, the female accuser is always believed and 

the male accused is never believed. 

I have personally represented male students where the evidence was 

overhwleming the conduct was consensual, yet the Title IX 

investigator and the UO have found otherwise. When sexual 

misconduct is ruled founded against my male clients, they are 

universally suspended for some period of time as punishment. 

Id.

80. Based on the numerous cases Ms. Fine has participated in with the University over 

Student Conduct Code allegations, she declared that the University “acts with a presumption 

against men in their investigations, ignores evidence which contradicts female accusers, and treats 

females found in violation with leniency which is denied to similarly situated men.” Id.

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 19 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 19 of 50
Page 20 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

81. Lissa Casey has represented students charged with sexual misconduct offenses at 

the University of Oregon and investigated accusations similar to the ones alleged by the University 

in this matter. In her affidavit (Exhibit #3), she states:

I have previously suggested that the University provide unbiased 

officers to preside over Administrative Conferences, which the 

University has responded to with denials. The investigators at the 

University are also the decision-makers about their own 

investigations.

When I have attempted to investigate accusations by attempting to 

interview witnesses, I have been threatened with additional student 

conduct allegations of “retaliation” against my client. 

In my professional opinion, bias exists at the University of Oregon 

to find female students’ accusations of sexual misconduct credible 

and to find male students in violation of sexual misconduct pursuant 

to the University’s student conduct code, and they have failed to 

remedy the blatant bias that exists within that system.

See Exhibit #3. 

82. Brian Michaels is local counsel for Plaintiffs Artis and Dotson. In his affidavit

(Exhibit #4), he recalls his representation of a client in a Sexual Assault Restraining Order case, 

stemming from a University sexual misconduct proceeding. In connection with that case, he took 

three depositions of University employees. These depositions were taken under a protective order. 

Mr. Michaels swears “Two of these depositions are extremely relevant and helpful to establishing 

Plaintiffs’ claims under both Due Process and Title IX.” See Exhibit #4. However, due to the 

protective order, he is prohibited from revealing the details at this time. He states, “It is my 

understanding from speaking with several attorneys who do this work, that these may be the only 

depositions of their kind, providing a unique insight into exactly how the university conducts its 

procedures in these contexts. Because the University maintains all relevant material behind 

protective orders, this declaration and the ones by the other local attorneys provide the only 

‘knowledge’ of facts available at this stage of proceedings.” Id. 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 20 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 20 of 50
Page 21 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

83. Based upon Plaintiffs’ sex/gender, the University deprived them of basic due 

process rights, equal protection rights, and other rights guaranteed by Title IX, and its 

implementing regulations, and by the University’s own stated policies and procedures.

84. In or around January 2015, the female student filed a lawsuit against 

University,alleging that her own Title IX rights had been violated due to University’s alleged 

“deliberate indifference” to the safety of its students. 

85. Astonishingly, Oregon’s counsel contacted Mr. Austin’s counsel, stated that had 

she been consulted as counsel things might have been handled differently, and asked for Mr. 

Austin’s help in defending the suit.

86. Prior to the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were regarded as three of the top amateur 

basketball players in the US; on the men’s basketball team at the Oregon, a Division I school 

within the Pac-12 Conference; and widely projected by experts in basketball and the NBA Draft 

to be selected in the first round of the NBA Draft, which would more likely than not be 

accompanied by a multi-million dollar guaranteed contract and tens of millions of dollars in 

prospective economic advantage.

87. Prior to taking the actions alleged herein, the Defendants were aware of the 

foregoing facts.

88. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs no longer 

play at a Division I school, have diminished chances of playing in the NBA, have been made to 

suffer the opprobrium associated with an suspension from a university, and the opprobrium 

associated with committing a sexual assault (when in fact he committed no sexual assault), and 

have as a result suffered personal and professional harm, including emotional distress, in the past, 

and will as a result suffer personal and professional harm in the future, including loss of income.

89. Plaintiffs, through counsel, served timely (within 180 days of the events), proper 

notice of their claims in the manner required by ORS 30.275.

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 21 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 21 of 50
Page 22 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

90. Recently, another male University student filed a lawsuit alleging that he was 

falsely accused of an off-campus sexual assault, and subsequently was given given an unfair 

disciplinary hearing, demonstrating a pattern and practice on the part of the University. The 

transcript of this hearing demonstrates patent bias on the part of Ms. Martin and the University in 

favor of the female accuser, and against the male who was accused, in both the conduct and 

outcome of the proceeding. Ultimately, the female’s testimony was believed by Ms. Martin and 

the University in the face of overwhelming testimony to the contrary.

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972,

20 U.S.C. § 1681, ET SEQ.

(AGAINST DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF OREGON)

91. Plaintiffs repeat the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

92. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.) provides, 

in relevant part, as follows: “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.”

93. The University receives federal funding through various means including, without 

limitation, student loans provided to University students directly by the federal government and 

through other funds furnished by the federal government, and as such is subject to the strictures of 

Title IX and its implementing regulations.

94. To assist schools with implementing Title IX and its regulations, the Office of Civil 

Rights of the US Department of Education has identified a number of factors to be used in 

determining whether a school’s procedures satisfy the “prompt and equitable” requirements of the 

regulations. The procedures adopted by a school must not only “ensure the Title IX rights of the 

complainant,” but must also “accord[] due process to both parties involved ... .”

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 22 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 22 of 50
Page 23 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

95. The University (by and through its agents and employees acting within the scope 

of their agency and employment, including the Defendants) deprived Plaintiffs, on the basis of 

their sex/gender, of their Title IX rights to among other things due process and equal protection 

through the improper administration, and/or the existence, in its current state, of the University’s 

policies and procedures.

96. First, the University engaged in selective enforcement in violation of Title IX, and 

discriminated against them based on their sex and, as a result, they have been seriously and 

irreparably damaged.

97. Regardless of their guilt or innocence (and, to be clear, Plaintiffs was and are

innocent), the severity of the penalty (a suspension of between four and ten years), as well as the 

decision to initiate the proceeding in the first place, were affected by the fact that they are male, 

and the accuser is a female.

98. On April 14, 2014, the Lane County District Attorney determined that she would 

not be pressing charges against the Plaintiffs “because the conflicting statements and actions by 

the victim make this case unprovable as a criminal case.” (Emphasis added.)

99. In or around early May 2014, presumably in response to the publication of the 

police report, the District Attorney’s office issued a lengthy document outlining numerous 

weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, as well as numerous inconsistencies in the accuser’s 

statements, and concluding that those weaknesses presented “an insurmountable barrier to 

prosecution.” (Emphasis added.)

100. Following the publication of the police reports at the end of April 2014, widespread 

protests occurred on the University’s campus, generally and outside Dr. Gottfredson’s office in 

Johnson Hall, attempting to pressure the University into taking action against the male basketball 

players on the basis of their sex/gender. 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 23 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 23 of 50
Page 24 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

101. On one occasion, protesters wielded bullhorns, and held signs with such slogans as 

“It’s Not OK to Slut Shame,” “I Live in a Rape Culture,” “UO: Expel Rapists,” “Dana Altman 

$25K Bonus for Ignoring Rape,” “Trust Survivors,” and “Passes on a Court Free Pass from the 

Courts.” 

102. The protests received extensive press coverage in the local and national media, and 

the University and its employees, including Dr. Gottfredson, were aware of same. 

103. These signs, using extremely loaded phrases such as “slut shame” (a colloquial 

phrase widely understood to mean criticizing or punishing a woman for engaging in sexual 

activity) and “rape culture” (another widely understood term “that was coined by feminists in the 

United States in the 1970’s ... designed to show the ways in which society blamed victims of 

sexual assault and normalized male sexual violence”) plainly and unambiguously suggested that 

the University had declined to punish the male students accused of rape, solely on the basis of their 

sex/gender.

104. These signs and protests had the actual effect of pressuring the University to take 

action against the innocent male basketball players solely on the basis of their sex/gender, in an 

effort to combat widespread public perception, both locally and nationally, that the University was 

not tough enough on male individuals who were accused of sexual assault.

105. Additionally, a psychology professor at the University, Jennifer J. Freyd, Ph.D., 

had “published a study in 2013 based on a survey of UO [University of Oregon] students 

examining whether an institution’s failure to prevent sexual assault or respond supportively could 

exacerbate a survivor's trauma. The study found that when women experienced a phenomenon 

Freyd calls institutional betrayal, they reported increased levels of anxiety, suggesting that 

‘institutions have the power to cause additional harm to survivors.’” (Emphasis added.)

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 24 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 24 of 50
Page 25 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

106. Prior to May 9, 2014, Dr. Freyd repeatedly spoke out against the University’s 

handling of this situation, and a protest led by and/or publicly endorsed by Dr. Freyd occurred at 

noon on May 8, 2014.

107. At 11:00 a.m. on May 9, 2014, Defendant Michael R. Gottfredson in effect imposed 

discipline upon Plaintiffs without due process, solely on the basis of their sex/gender. 

108. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, despite the fact that the District 

Attorney had cast significant doubt on whether the accuser was telling the truth, Dr. Gottfredson 

stated, “The type of behavior in the police report released this week is utterly unacceptable and 

will not be tolerated,” and further stated, “I know it’s frustrating, and we would like to say more, 

but we are not going to violate the laws that are in place to protect students’ privacy or the rights 

of our students – especially the survivor.” (Italics in original University transcript.)

109. Evidencing that the University had prejudged Plaintiffs’ guilt, and done so on the 

basis of their sex/gender, Dr. Gottfredson’s statement included the conclusion that the female 

accuser was a “survivor” (“survivor” being a loaded word invoking sex/gender, in the context pled 

and described above), the statement that “as a father, I was appalled at what I read” (“as a father” 

being a loaded phrase invoking sex/gender, in the context pled and described above), and the 

statement that Plaintiffs would “not be playing basketball at Oregon again.” 

110. Dr. Gottfredson’s statements were grounded in sexism and/or gender bias, and 

constituted a clear statement on behalf of the University that directly influenced the actions of all 

other individuals who acted on behalf of the University in taking action against Plaintiffs. Indeed, 

Dr. Gottfredson had significant influence, and likely even determinative influence, over the 

University’s decision and actions.

111. In addition, and/or in the alternative, the actions of the University and the individual 

Defendants were all taken in response to internal and external compliants and protests that the 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 25 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 25 of 50
Page 26 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

University was not taking strong enough actions against males in cases involving alleged sexual 

misconduct by female students against male students at the University.

112. As the Second Circuit observed in Doe v. Columbia University, Docket No. 15-

1536, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13773 (2d Cir. July 29, 2016), in ruling that the plaintiff therein had 

stated a plausible claim under Title IX:

The Complaint alleges that, having been severely criticized in the 

student body and in the public press for toleration of sexual assault 

of female students, Columbia was motivated in this instance to 

accept the female’s accusation ofsexual assault and reject the male’s 

claim of consent, so as to show the student body and the public that 

the University is serious about protecting female students from 

sexual assault by male students—especially varsity athletes. There 

is nothing implausible or unreasonable about the Complaint’s 

suggested inference that the panel adopted a biased stance in favor 

of the accusing female and against the defending male varsity athlete 

in order to avoid further fanning the criticisms that Columbia turned 

a blind eye to such assaults. ... It is worth noting furthermore that 

the possible motivations mentioned by the district Court as more 

plausible than sex discrimination, including a fear of negative 

publicity or of Title IX liability, are not necessarily, as the district 

Court characterized them, lawful motivations distinct from sex bias. 

A Defendant is not excused from liability for discrimination because 

the discriminatory motivation does not result from a discriminatory 

heart, but rather from a desire to avoid practical disadvantages that 

might result from unbiased action. A covered university that adopts, 

even temporarily, a policy of bias favoring one sex over the other in 

a disciplinary dispute, doing so in order to avoid liability or bad 

publicity, has practiced sex discrimination, notwithstanding that the 

motive for the discrimination did not come from ingrained or 

permanent bias against that particular sex.

113. Here, as in the Doe v. Columbia case, the University “was motivated in this instance 

to accept the female’s accusation of sexual assault and reject the male’s claim of consent, so as to 

show the student body and the public that the University is serious about protecting female students 

from sexual assault by male students—especially varsity athletes.”

114. In this very case, a female accuser was treated more favorably than the male 

accused on the basis of sex/gender. Her highly questionable and in fact discredited statements were 

taken at face value and served as a basis for punishment. 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 26 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 26 of 50
Page 27 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

115. Additionally, all evidence presently available to the undersigned, in the absence of 

further discovery, demonstrates that the University has never taken action against a female student 

(including the accuser in this case) for engaging in the type of conduct that Plaintiffs allegedly 

engaged in according to the University, i.e., sex with only implicit consent.

116. Furthermore, all evidence presently available to the undersigned, in the absence of 

further discovery, demonstrates that the University has never taken action against a female student 

for making a false allegation of the kind involved in this matter.

117. Finally, all evidence presently available to the undersigned, in the absence of 

further discovery, demonstrates that males invariably lose when charged with sexual misconduct 

at the University, and the University invariably “believes” the female’s version of events, no matter 

how implausible that version of events is, and “rejects” the male’s version of events, no matter 

how credible that version of events is.

118. Second, there was an erroneous outcome from a flawed proceeding, in violation of 

Title IX.

119. The University discriminated against Plaintiffs by failing to comply with its own 

procedures and by failing to comply with the requirements of Title IX, in order to reach a predetermined result, due to his sex, gender stereotypes, Dr. Freyd’s work and/or the work of others 

at the University, and the accuser’s newspaper article, creating an internal “atmosphere of 

scrutiny,” and widespread campus protests that received local and national press coverage and 

created an external “atmosphere of scrutiny” demanding that the male basketball players be 

punished as alleged perpetrators of male-on-female sexual assault, on the basis of their sex/gender.

120. The University created an environment in which Plaintiffs, accused male students, 

was so fundamentally denied due process as to be virtually assured a finding of guilt.

121. Such a biased and one-sided process deprived Plaintiffs, male students, of 

educational opportunities on the basis of sex.

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 27 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 27 of 50
Page 28 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

122. The University conducted its “investigation” and subsequent hearing in a manner 

that was biased against the accused based on sex.

123. From the outset, the investigation and hearing processes were slanted in favor of 

the female accuser, because of her sex. The University’s representatives, including its president, 

accepted her statements at face value despite the prosecutor’s statements, and granted the female 

accuser the presumption of truth because she is female, as demanded by the protesters and 

otherwise, in order to appease those who wished for males accused of sexual assault to be punished.

124. Plaintiffs did not have an equal or fair opportunity to present relevant witnesses, to 

present evidence (as described above), and to present evidence about the accuser’s motives to 

present false accusations, and even if they did, which they did not, their fate had been prejudged 

by the Defendants and such evidence would have been rejected as a matter of course due to the 

University’s sex/gender bias, and the sex/gender bias of the individual Defendants.

125. Those involved with the hearing process were improperly and/or insufficiently 

trained under Title IX.

126. The University responded to the accuser’s accusations with a series of arbitrary, 

capricious, discriminatory, and gender-based actions directed toward a predetermined outcome: 

Plaintiff’s suspension from the University to satisfy and appease the University’s internal and 

external critics.

127. Third, the University, in violation of Title IX, demonstrated a deliberate and 

systematic indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs, due to their sex.

128. The University’s actions, and inactions, were unreasonable in light of the known 

circumstances, as described in detail above, including but in no way limited to the District 

Attorney’s office declining to prosecute, and issuing a document outlining numerous weaknesses 

in the case, and concluding that those weaknesses presented “an insurmountable barrier to 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 28 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 28 of 50
Page 29 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

prosecution” (emphasis added), after which time the University took contrary action solely on the 

basis of sex/gender bias.

129. But for the obvious gender bias, the outcome of the University proceeding would 

have been different.

130. As a direct and proximate consequence of the University’s Title IX violation, 

Plaintiffs have sustained significant damages including, but not limited to, having an academic 

and/or disciplinary record(s) that improperly reflects that he was found to have committed sexual 

misconduct, harassment, and/or other related offenses.

131. Additionally, as a direct and proximate consequence of the University’s Title IX 

violation, Plaintiffs no longer play at a Division I school, have diminished chances of playing in 

the NBA, have been made to suffer the opprobrium associated with an suspension from a 

university, and the opprobrium associated with committing a sexual assault (when in fact he 

committed no sexual assault), and have as a result suffered personal and professional harm, 

including emotional distress, in the past, and will as a result suffer personal and professional harm 

in the future, including loss of income.

132. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, as a result of the actions of the 

Defendants, Plaintiffs are likely to sustain economic damages in the form of lost income, and seek

at least $6 million for economic damages; and have sustained and will continue to sustain 

noneconomic damages, and seek $1.5 million in noneconomic damages.

133. Plaintiffs were required to hire attorneys to represent him in this matter and are

entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 

otherwise, and such other legal and equitable relief as is appropriate in the circumstances 

presented.

COUNT 2

LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(AND FOR ATTORNEY FEES UNDER § 1988)

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 29 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 29 of 50
Page 30 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

(VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT’S GUARANTY OF EQUAL 

PROTECTION)

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT UNIVERSITY OF OREGON)

134. Plaintiffs Dominic Artis and Damyean Dotson repeat the foregoing allegations as 

if fully set forth herein.

135. These Defendants by their treatment of these Plaintiffs during these accusatory 

proceedings in a disparate manner, discriminating against them due to their gender by depriving 

them of the slightest rights afforded an accused, by announcing their guilt to the press before even 

conducting the slightest investigation, or opportunity to defend themselves against such horrific 

allegations, despite the fact the Lane County District Attorney’s Office, upon review of the 

evidence, declined to prosecute.

136. The individually sued Defendants, in their individual capacities, are "persons" 

within the ambit of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

137. These Defendants, in their individual capacities, acted "under color of' state law”

because they exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because 

the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law." See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 

(1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941).

138. Furthermore, these Defendants and their representatives were acting in accordance 

with their employers' official policy and custom, including the refusal to provide students facing 

expulsion with substantive and procedural due process.

139. There was a direct and proximate causal connection between these Defendants' 

wrongful conduct and the harm and damages that resulted.

140. These Defendants' conduct deprived the Plaintiff of his rights under the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, and other rights secured by the Bill of Rights and 

the US Constitution, as well as other federally secured rights and rights secured by other law, and 

failed to protect Plaintiffs from injury.

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 30 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 30 of 50
Page 31 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

141. These Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously, acted with deliberate

indifference towards the Plaintiffs substantive and procedural due process rights, and acted with 

an improper motivation.

142. As a result of these Defendants' conduct, Mr. Austin has suffered and will continue 

to suffer personal and professional harm, as alleged supra.

143. As a result of these actions by Defendants, Plaintiffs are each likely to sustain 

economic damages in the form of lost income; and have sustained and will continue to sustain 

noneconomic damages; thereby each Plaintiff is seeking at least $9 million for economic damages; 

and has sustained and will continue to sustain noneconomic damages, and seeks $1.5 million in 

noneconomic damages.

144. Plaintiffs were required to hire attorneys to represent him in this matter and is 

entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT 3

NEGLIGENCE

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

145. Plaintiffs repeat the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

146. The Defendants, individually and collectively, had a “special relationship” with 

Plaintiffs and a corresponding duty to Plaintiffs to conduct a campus investigation in a competent 

manner and in accordance with societal standards and norms governing such investigations, and 

to conduct a hearing in a competent manner and in accordance with societal standards and norms 

governing such hearings, and otherwise act in a reasonably prudent manner with regard to 

Plaintiffs, and it was foreseeable that a breach of this duty would lead to the harm suffered by 

Plaintiffs.

147. Both the University and the individual Defendants had a “special relationship” with 

Plaintiffs because they exercised independent judgment on behalf of Plaintiffs and other varsity 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 31 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 31 of 50
Page 32 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

athletes to advance the individual interests of those athletes, by recruiting those athletes and then 

managing virtually every aspect of their time at University, and by virtue of this special 

relationship owe a duty of care actionable in damages.

148. Additionally, and/or in the alternative, as an athlete at the University, Plaintiffs

were “particularly vulnerable and dependant upon the [Univerity and the individual Defendants]

who, correspondingly, hold[] considerable power over the plaintiff’s welfare.” See, e.g., Davidson 

v. Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 543 S.E.2d 920, 926-27 (N.C. App. 2001).

149. Here, the University depended upon its well-known basketball program for a 

variety of benefits, including national attention and recognition, the University actively recruited 

Plaintiffs, top basketball prospects in the US, for the purposes of benefiting the University’s 

basketball program, and the University further exercised significant control over Plaintiffs and the 

other athletes on the basketball team as demonstrated by among other things the terms of Plaintiffs’ 

scholarship, and the conditions imposed by the University on its athletes, including but not limited 

to the University’s scheduling of and control over athletes’ time and suspending athletes and 

removing them from participation in athletics for disciplinary reasons. See id. (“Second, when a 

school exerts significant control over students as a result of their participation in a schoolsponsored athletic activity, the students may have higher expectations with regard to the protection 

they will receive from the school.”); see also Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 

(3d Cir. 1993) (holding that a special relationship existed between Gettysburg College and a 

student participating lacrosse practice, where the college actively recruited the student to play 

lacrosse, as this fact demonstrated the extent to which the student’s participation in the lacrosse 

program benefitted the school); Kavanagh v. Trs. of Boston University, 795 N.E.2d 1170 (Mass. 

2003).

150. The Defendants (including Defendant University of Oregon, by and through its 

agents and employees acting within the scope of their agency and employment) breached their 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 32 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 32 of 50
Page 33 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

duty by (among other things) refusing to allow Plaintiffs to subpoena witnesses who would be 

supportive of their defense, refusing to provide unredacted reports, refusing to provide a contested 

case hearing, refusing to allow cross-examination, refusing to provide due process, and most 

significantly prejudging Plaintiffs’ guilt, and engineering a “kangaroo court” hearing with the 

purpose of finding that Plaintiffs committed a sexual assault that did not in reality occur, solely to 

appease protesters and internal, local, and national critics of the University (rather than protecting 

Plaintiffs’ rights as an athlete who had been recruited to play basketball for the University, and 

who were widely expected to be drafted in the first round of the NBA Draft).

151. The Defendants’ actions were in bad faith, and/or taken with malice.

152. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered 

and will continue to suffer personal and professional harm, including the property damage alleged 

supra.

153. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, as a result of the actions of the 

Defendants, Plaintiffs are likely to sustain economic damages in the form of lost income, and seek

at least $6 million for economic damages; and have sustained and will continue to sustain 

noneconomic damages, and seek $1.5 million in noneconomic damages.

COUNT 4

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(AGAINST DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF OREGON)

154. Plaintiffs repeat the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

155. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were recipients of an athletic scholarship from the 

University of Oregon, which contained both express terms and an implied covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing.

156. Among the express terms was the provision that “[t]his assistance will be 

considered for renewal during subsequent periods of attendance as long as you are a student in 

good standing, maintain normal progress toward graduation and are in compliance with all 

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 33 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 33 of 50
Page 34 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

eligibility requirements of this institution, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA. This assistance 

may be changed or terminated only in accordance with the legislation of the NCAA, principal 

details of which appear on the back of this statement.” 

157. Nothing in these “details ... appear[ing] on the back of this statement” state much 

less suggest that the University could decline to renew Plaintiffs’ scholarship in the circumstances 

presented. 

158. Further, industry custom and “usage of trade” makes it implicit in the contractual 

relationship between athletes and the universities recruiting them, including the University of 

Oregon, that the universities would renew the scholarships of athletes recruited to play at a 

university.

159. Plaintiffs had the objectively reasonable expectation, based upon the express terms 

of the contractual relationship governing the athletic scholarship, that the University would renew 

their scholarship, and not act so as to deprive them of the fruits of the scholarship, and otherwise 

act in good faith vis-à-vis their scholarships.

160. The University’s actions, as described and set forth above, constituted a breach of 

the terms of the contract, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

161. As a direct and proximate result of the University’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs

have been made suffer significant direct and consequential damages, including loss of future

income as described and set forth above.

162. As a result of the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs expects to sustain further 

economic damages, and will move to amend the complaint when and if those economic damages 

are incurred.

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 34 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 34 of 50
Page 35 – PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request a jury trial and pray for a judgment in their favor, 

damages in an appropriate amount to be determined by the trier of fact, their reasonable costs and 

attorneys’ fees, and for any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

Dated: October 11, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Brian Michaels

Brian Michaels, Attorney at Law, OSB No. 925607

259 East Fifth Ave.

Eugene, OR 97401

Phone: (541) 687-0578

Fax: (541) 686-2137

Alex Spiro, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)

Brafman & Associates, P.C.

767 Third Avenue, 26th Fl

New York, NY 10017

Phone: (212) 750-7800

Fax: (212) 750-3906

s/ Alex Spiro

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dominic Artis and Damyean Dotson

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 35 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 35 of 50
Page 1 – CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Brian Michaels, hereby certify that, on the date set forth below, I served a copy of the 

within Third Amended Complaint upon the following counsel of record via this Court’s mandatory 

Electronic Case Filing system:

Michelle Barton Smigel, P.C. (OSB No. 045530)

Michael Porter, P.C. (OSB No. 003560)

MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP

3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204

Attorneys for the Defendants

Dated: October 11, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Brian Michaels

Brian Michaels, Attorney at Law, OSB No. 925607

259 East Fifth Ave.

Eugene, OR 97401

Phone: (541) 687-0578

Fax: (541) 686-2137

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 36 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 36 of 50
DECLARATION OF GREG VERALRUD

I, Greg Veralrud, being first duly sworn, make this declaration regarding my recollections of my review of a report of the Title IX investigation conducted as a consequence of a claim of non-consensual sexual contact by my then client, Dominic 

Artis, and Damyean Dotson and Brandon Austin, all male students at the University of Oregon and members of its basketball team:

I represented Dominic Artis from approx. April, 2014, through his administrative hearing with the University of Oregon held June 17, 2014, then through 

receipt of the University’s order suspending Mr. Artis and his two fellow student 

basketball players.

Prior to the hearing, I made a request for the report of the investigation 

conducted by what I understood to be and was advised was an investigator working under the auspices of and in accordance with the requirements of Title IX. I 

was allowed to review a copy of the Title IX investigative report, but I was not 

permitted to take a copy of it from the office of the Student Affairs Dean, Sandy 

Weintraub. My recollection of the report is that many witness names were redacted from the copy. 

I do not contend that my current recollection of the contents of the report is 

complete or totally accurate. Because there was some overlap between the Title 

IX investigation, the investigation of the Eugene Police Dept., and the investigation conducted on behalf of the male students by their respective counsel, I

acknowledge that attribution of a particular fact to the Title IX report could be in 

error. That said, I do recall the evidence supporting the claim of non-consensual 

contact was based solely upon the statement of the complaining female student 

involved in the encounter with the male students. 

I recall that the report contained references to interviews with other students who were with the complainant the evening of the encounter, who saw her 

interact with one or more of the male students at a private party, and who talked 

with her and watched her leave in a taxi with the three male students after she 

had been involved in sexual contact and oral intercourse with the male students 

at the party. My recollection is that these witnesses provided statements indicating the complainant was not intoxicated (as she later claimed), that she evidenced a willingness to leave in the taxi with the three male students, and that 

she ignored advice from her acquaintances at the party that she should not leave 

with the male students.

My recollection is that the report contained references to text conversations occurring the day following the encounter between the complainant and the 

male students, including one exchange between the complainant and an acquaintance where the complainant was asked how the evening had gone and the 

Exhibit #1 Page 1 of 3

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 37 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 37 of 50
complainant making a response that contained no complaint of any nonconsensual sexual contact, even though the female student’s interaction with the 

male students was clearly the subject matter. I thought the complainant’s text 

conversation was inconsistent with someone having been subjected to unwanted 

sexual contact with three male students.

I, along with counsel for students Dotson and Austin, provided additional 

evidence to the University corroborating the male students’ position that the sexual activity with the complaining female student was consensual. This information included a report of a conversation with the taxi driver who had taken the 

male and female students from the party to the premises of one of the male students. The taxi driver advised that the female student was talkative, and he 

characterized her as seeming impressed with being in the company of three University of Oregon basketball players. We also provided information from the Eugene Police Dept. investigation to the effect that the complaining female student 

had acknowledged consensual sexual activity with Mr. Artis the morning after 

spending the evening in his bed after sexual activity with the other two male students. Other reports provided to the University included a statement from a fellow female student who had talked to the complaining female student at the party 

while she (the complainant) was in the bathroom with at least one of the three 

male students; the complainant made it clear to the reporting student that her 

presence was not welcome in the bathroom. To this date, I do not know whether 

or not this additional information provided to the University ever made it into any 

report or addendum to the report conducted by the Title IX investigator.

Even without that information, in the report that I viewed, I recall the report 

was broad enough and contained so much evidence corroborating the male students’ account that I was perplexed by the investigator’s conclusion that nonconsensual sexual contact had occurred without any explanation or effort to explain the contradictory evidence.

When I reviewed the conclusion in the investigative report, my immediate 

concern was that there would be significant pressure on the university administration to make its own student conduct findings in lock step with the Title IX investigative report, and my initial thought and advice to my client was that he 

should not waive his right to a “panel hearing,” which would allow the factfinding 

to be made by a panel made up of faculty and students acting as a type of jury. 

Subsequent to that, we received information from the university that if Mr. Artis 

were to waive the panel hearing and proceed based upon an administrative review by Mr. Weintraub that did not require the presence of the complaining witness, they would agree that there would be no expulsion and that the sanction 

would be limited to a suspension of some years.

This wouldn’t necessarily be a disqualifying factor. I was also concerned 

about the university’s counsel’s lack of willingness to exercise its subpoena power in conjunction with the panel hearing to bring forth witnesses who contradicted

Exhibit #1 Page 2 of 3

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 38 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 38 of 50
the complainant and corroborated Mr. Artis with respect to the consensual nature

of the encounter. Without subpoena, we would not be able to get the presence

of the Eugene police officer who investigated the case and took statements from

the complainant, the three basketball players accused , various acquaintances

and companions of the complainant, and the cab driver who picked up the three

basketball players and the complaining witness and took them from the party to

Mr. Artis' and Mr. Dotson's apartment (the statement of the cab driver to our investigator was that the complainant was in a talkative mood, did not seem at all

afraid or apprehensive and he described her as seeming very pleased to be in

the company of three University of Oregon basketball players).

I, the undersigned, hereby declare the above statement is true to the best

of my knowledge and belief, and I understand it is made for use as evidence in

court and subject to penalty for perjury.

GregfLvera,ruk

Exhibit #1 Page 3 of 3

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 39 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 39 of 50
Exhibit #2 Page 1 of 6

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 40 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 40 of 50
Exhibit #2 Page 2 of 6

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 41 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 41 of 50
Exhibit #2 Page 3 of 6

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 42 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 42 of 50
Exhibit #2 Page 4 of 6

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 43 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 43 of 50
Exhibit #2 Page 5 of 6

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 44 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 44 of 50
Exhibit #2 Page 6 of 6

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 45 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 45 of 50
1 DECLARATION OF LISSA CASEY 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

DOMINIC ARTIS and 

DAMYEAN DOTSON,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; SANDY

WEINTRAUB; CHICORA MARTIN;

ROBIN HOLMES; and MICHAEL R.

GOTTFREDSON,

all in their individual capacities only,

 Defendants.

 Case No. 16-CV-00647

DECLARATION OF

LISSA CASEY

 

I, Lissa Casey, do hereby depose and swear, under penalty of perjury, based upon knowledge and 

belief: 

1. I am an attorney at Arnold Law in Eugene, Oregon. 

2. I have represented students that are charged with Sexual Misconduct offenses by the 

University of Oregon through the disciplinary process at that University. 

3. I have reviewed reports of accusations that have both been filed by the Lane County 

District Attorney’s Office and those that have, to my knowledge, have had no law 

enforcement involvement whatsoever. 

4. I have investigated these accusations by interviewing witnesses and presenting evidence 

to the University throughout the Student Conduct disciplinary process. 

5. I have never had a female student make an inquiry of our firm for representation due to 

an allegation of Sexual Misconduct under the Student Conduct Code. All of my clients 

have been male. 

6. Through my investigations in each case I have had against the University, when the 

Exhibit #3 Page 1 of 2

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 46 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 46 of 50
2 DECLARATION OF LISSA CASEY 

totality of the evidence is viewed, there can only be one logical conclusion, even based 

on the preponderance of the evidence standard: that the accuser’s accusations are not 

credible. 

7. I have presented the University with credible evidence of consensual sexual activity in 

each case, in addition to motives for false accusations on the accuser’s part. The 

University has consistently found that evidence not credible or not relevant to the 

determination, and has always found the accuser’s statements credible instead.

8. I have previously suggested that the University provide unbiased officers to preside over 

Administrative Conferences, which the University has responded to with denials. The 

investigators at the University are also the decision-makers about their own 

investigations. 

9. When I have attempted to investigate accusations by attempting to interview witnesses, I 

have been threatened with additional student conduct allegations of “retaliation” against 

my client. 

10. In my professional opinion, bias exists at the University of Oregon to find female 

students’ accusations of sexual misconduct credible and to find male students in violation 

of sexual misconduct pursuant to the University’s student conduct code, and they have 

failed to remedy the blatant bias that exists within that system. 

Undersigned hereby declares the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, 

and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and subject to penalty for perjury. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of October 2016, 

BY: 

 

_______s/ Lissa Casey_______ 

Lissa Casey, OSB #086541 

Attorney For Plaintiff

Exhibit #3 Page 2 of 2

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 47 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 47 of 50
1 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

ALEX SPIRO, ESQ. 

Brafman & Associates, P.C. 

767 Third Avenue, 26th Fl 

New York, NY 10017 

Phone: (212)-750-7800 

Fax: (212)-750-3906

BRIAN MICHAELS, OSB # 925607

259 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 300-D

Eugene, Oregon 97401

Telephone: 541.687.0578

Fax: 541.686.2137

 brian@brianmichaelslaw.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

DOMINIC ARTIS and 

DAMYEAN DOTSON,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; SANDY

WEINTRAUB; CHICORA MARTIN;

ROBIN HOLMES; and MICHAEL R.

GOTTFREDSON,

all in their individual capacities only,

 Defendants.

 Case No. 16-CV-00647

DECLARATION OF

BRIAN MICHAELS 

 

Undersigned BRIAN MICHAELS does hereby depose and swear, under penalty of perjury:

1. Undersigned Counsel is local counsel for plaintiffs. These statements are based upon my 

personal knowledge. 

2. Previously, I represented a Respondent, Jacob Cohen, in a Sexual Assault Restraining 

Order case filed by Lea Lawrence, Petitioner, through the University of Oregon.

3. In that case, Depositions were taken of three University of Oregon Employees. These 

EXHIBIT 4 Page 1 of 3

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 48 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 48 of 50
2 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

Depositions were taken under a Protective Order. Two of these depositions are extremely 

relevant and helpful to establishing Plaintiffs’ claims under both Due Process and Title 

IX. Having taken the depositions and read them, I have personal knowledge. Because of 

the Protective Order, I am prohibited from expressing any further information. 

4. It is my understanding from speaking with several attorneys who do this work, that these 

may be the only depositions of their kind, providing a unique insight into exactly how the 

university conducts its procedures in these contexts. Because the University maintains 

all relevant material behind protective orders, this declaration and the ones by the other 

local attorneys provide the only ‘knowledge’ of facts available at this stage of 

proceedings.

5. These depositions will become available through discovery once this case enters that 

stage. 

6. In hopes of being able to use these depositions in this case, under a protective order 

issued by this Court, a motion was filed in Lane County Circuit Court to modify the 

protective order. The motion along with the attached protective order are attached here 

as Exhibit 1. 

7. The university, Defendants in this case, objected, and submitted a letter to the court. That 

letter is also attached, Exhibit 2.

8. Because I no longer represent Respondent, and Respondent objected through new 

///

///

///

///

///

EXHIBIT 4 Page 2 of 3

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 49 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 49 of 50
3 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL

counsel, the court determined the motion lacked standing, and struck the pleadings. See 

attached order, Exhibit 3. 

Undersigned hereby declares the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, 

and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and subject to penalty for perjury.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8

th day of August 2016, 

BY:

_______s/ BRIAN MICHAELS_____

BRIAN MICHAELS OSB 925607

Attorney For Plaintiff

EXHIBIT 4 Page 3 of 3

Case 6:16-cv-00647-MC Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 50 of 50 Case 6:15-cv-02257-MC Document 35 Filed 10/11/16 Page 50 of 50