PAGE 1 – COMPLAINT 

DAVID H. ANGELI, OSB No. 020244 

 david@angelilaw.com 

KRISTEN L. TRANETZKI, OSB. No. 115730 

 kristen@angelilaw.com 

Angeli Ungar Law Group LLC 

121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 954-2232 

Facsimile: (503) 227-0880 

COURTNEY W. ANGELI, OSB No. 941765 

 courtney@baaslaw.com 

ROBIN BOWERFIND, OSB No. 035949 

 robin@baaslaw.com 

Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP 

321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 974-5015 

Facsimile: (971) 230-0337 

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Doe 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JOHN DOE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THE REED INSTITUTE 

(aka, Reed College) and JANE ROE, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: _______________ 

COMPLAINT 

Wrongful Expulsion (Title IX of the 

Education Amendments of 1972, 20 

U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.); Breach of 

Contract; Breach of Covenant of Good 

Faith and Fair Dealing; Unfair/Deceptive 

Trade Practices; Estoppel and Reliance; 

Defamation; Malicious Use of Process; 

Abuse of Process; Intentional 

Interference with Contractual Relations 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 58
PAGE 2 – COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff John Doe (“John”), by and through his undersigned attorneys, David H. Angeli 

and Kristen L. Tranetzki of Angeli Ungar Law Group LLC and Courtney Angeli and Robin 

Bowerfind of Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP, respectfully alleges as follows against 

defendants The Reed Institute (a/k/a Reed College) (“Reed”) and Jane Roe (“Jane”):1

THE NATURE OF THIS ACTION 

1. In 2013, Jane and John were students at Reed. At that time, both were over the 

age of 18. 

2. On July 25, 2013, after they had been dating seriously for approximately ten 

months, Jane and John engaged in fully consensual group sexual activity with a woman who had 

recently graduated from Reed, but who was still attending classes there (“AM”). 

3. That sexual activity occurred after all three—John, Jane, and AM—knowingly 

and voluntarily consumed drugs and alcohol. 

4. This was not John and Jane’s first sexual activity together. 

5. This was also not John and Jane’s first group sexual activity together with a third 

party. John and Jane had previously participated together in group sexual encounters after 

consuming drugs and alcohol. 

6. After July 25, 2013, John and Jane continued to date and engage in consensual 

sexual activities for approximately three months. In October 2013, John broke up with Jane. 

7. In March 2014, eight months after the July 25 group sex, and only after John 

started dating Jane’s friend, Jane claimed—for the first time—to Reed’s Community Safety 

                                                            

1

 Contemporaneously with this Complaint, Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed 

pseudonymously. Although Jane Roe engaged in illegal and tortious conduct, a pseudonym is 

also used to protect her identity. See, e.g., Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 

1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000); Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, No. CV. 07-1732-

PK, 2008 WL 656021, at *1 (D. Or. Mar. 6, 2008). 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 58
PAGE 3 – COMPLAINT 

Division (“Community Safety”) that (among other things) she had not consented to the group sex 

on July 25, 2013. 

8. Jane’s accusations were malicious and false, brought in bad faith, and intended to 

retaliate against John for dating her friend, rather than to vindicate legitimate or honest concerns. 

9. Reed—concerned by years of reports criticizing the school for its permissive 

culture and purportedly weak sexual assault policies—responded to Jane’s accusations with a 

series of arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal actions directed toward a predetermined outcome: 

John’s expulsion from Reed. 

10. When Reed ultimately imposed that draconian sanction on John, Reed also made 

clear its intent to disclose the facts and circumstances surrounding John’s expulsion to anyone 

who might inquire about his status with or departure from Reed, including any university to 

which John might apply or any future employer seeking a copy of his transcript. Specifically, 

Reed informed John, in writing, that “a record of this case will be retained in [John’s] 

disciplinary record and released to third parties in response to appropriate requests for his 

disciplinary information.” 

11. Reed took those actions despite sworn testimony from AM—the third participant 

in the July 25 group sex—that Jane was not only “fully aware of what was going on,” but also 

that she “was totally into it, . . . enthusiastic and seemed to be really enjoying herself.” 

12. Two days after the group sex, Jane told AM that she “had enjoyed the 

experience.” 

13. Another female student (“ML”) who was present in the same residence on July 

25, 2013 similarly swore under oath that Jane repeatedly (but unsuccessfully) encouraged ML to 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 58
PAGE 4 – COMPLAINT 

join in the group sexual activity, and that Jane did not appear intoxicated or impaired at the time 

of that solicitation. 

14. In August 2013, Jane expressed interest to John—in writing—in having another 

group sexual encounter with John and AM and also identified another female student as a “sex 

goal” for the upcoming semester. 

15. Despite the clear evidence that the events of July 25, 2013 were fully consensual, 

Reed expelled John anyway, and vowed to label him as a rapist to anyone who might ask or to 

whom his transcript was released. 

16. Reed’s decision to expel John followed an amateurish and biased investigation by 

Community Safety. That investigation violated John’s rights and Reed’s own policies and 

procedures in numerous ways, as detailed below. 

17. Similarly, Reed’s Sexual Misconduct Board (“SMB”), charged with adjudicating 

the allegations against John, failed to comply with federal law and/or with Reed’s policies and 

procedures. 

18. The SMB’s faulty and biased decision was upheld through a flawed appeals 

process, the outcome of which—John’s expulsion—was preordained. 

19. Reed promises its students that the school will fairly and impartially investigate 

and adjudicate allegations of sexual misconduct. However, as a practical matter, Reed’s policies 

and procedures do not permit students accused of sexual misconduct to obtain fair hearings 

before competent or impartial tribunals, and it failed in this instance to provide the equitable 

resolution of complaints the law requires. 

20. Furthermore, Reed applies its policies and procedures in a discriminatory manner 

to male students because of gender. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 4 of 58
PAGE 5 – COMPLAINT 

21. In John’s case, Reed’s policies and procedures prevented him from receiving a 

fair hearing and resulted in the imposition of the most severe sanction available to Reed, which 

will have dramatic repercussions on him for the rest of his life. 

22. Moreover, even though John, Jane, and AM participated equally in the activities 

on July 25, 2013, Reed investigated and disciplined only John—the only male in the group—

taking no disciplinary action whatsoever against either of the female participants. 

23. During the SMB hearing and appeal process, Reed also deprived John of basic 

due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 

1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“Title IX”) and its implementing regulations, and by Reed’s 

own stated policies and procedures. For example: 

a. Federal law requires schools to provide “a balanced and fair process that provides 

the same opportunities to both parties.” The law also requires that complainants 

and alleged perpetrators be provided with “an equal opportunity to present 

relevant witnesses and evidence.” Reed violated those mandates by instructing 

John in advance of the hearing that he was forbidden from “attempting to contact 

any party or witness involved in the proceedings about this case,” thereby 

preventing him from conducting any reasonable factual investigation or ensuring 

that key witnesses—including AM and ML—would appear to testify at his 

hearing. The SMB compounded that problem by doing nothing prior to the 

hearing to compel those witnesses’ attendance. 

b. Because the SMB failed to compel the attendance of key witnesses like AM—an 

actual participant in the activity at issue—the evidence at the hearing consisted 

almost exclusively of “he said, she said” testimony. There was no physical, 

medical, or other corroborating evidence presented. And the SMB forbade John 

from presenting evidence of Jane’s biases and motives to lie. The severe 

limitations placed on John’s ability to present evidence in his defense, combined 

with the “preponderance of the evidence” standard utilized, resulted in a virtually 

pre-determined finding in Jane’s favor. 

c. The United States Department of Education “discourages schools from allowing 

students to serve on hearing boards in cases involving allegations of sexual 

violence.” Nevertheless, in John’s case, three of the five members of the SMB 

were students. 

d. Reed’s perceived need to respond to public criticism of its permissive culture and 

history of mishandling claims of sexual assault—reflected by its hiring of a 

former federal prosecutor to serve as its President—created an environment that 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 5 of 58
PAGE 6 – COMPLAINT 

made it impossible for Reed’s administration to equitably and impartially review 

the SMB’s factual findings and the propriety of the penalty it imposed. 

e. Community Safety’s investigation, the SMB’s process and findings, the decision 

to expel John, the denial of John’s appeal, and Reed’s policies and procedures 

violated Reed’s contractual obligations to John and were applied against John in a 

discriminatory manner on account of his gender. 

f. Although John himself was previously a victim of sexual assault (by a female 

Reed student) and a physical assault (by Jane), Reed denied him the same 

protections afforded female complainants. Reed discouraged John from bringing 

any formal charges himself and Reed never sanctioned the females who assaulted 

him. 

g. Despite the serious nature of the charges and the severity of the resulting 

sanctions, Reed prohibits students accused of sexual wrongdoing from receiving 

assistance from legal counsel during hearings. Compounding that deficiency in 

Reed’s policies, John—a college student with no legal training—was given a 

mere eight days in which to prepare for his hearing, the results of which could 

(and did) have a life-changing impact. 

24. As a result of Reed’s and Jane’s tortious and illegal conduct, John’s academic 

future, career prospects, earning potential, and reputation have been severely and irreparably 

damaged. The significant time, effort, and expense that John devoted to obtaining a college 

education at Reed and fostering relationships in the Reed community are lost. And Reed has 

literally labeled him a rapist, a slander that it has promised to repeat to anyone who asks. 

25. For these reasons, John brings this action to obtain relief based on Reed’s clear 

violations of Title IX and applicable Oregon law. He seeks to recover damages for, inter alia, 

Reed’s breach of contract arising out of the school’s failure to follow federal law and its own 

policies and procedures regarding student disciplinary actions, and its wanton failure to abide by 

its duty and obligation to adhere to such policies and procedures in a good-faith, professional, 

unbiased manner. John is entitled to have the disciplinary decision vacated, to an award of 

damages for Reed’s and Jane’s false, malicious, and injurious actions and statements, and to his 

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing this action. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 6 of 58
PAGE 7 – COMPLAINT 

THE PARTIES 

26. Plaintiff John Doe (hereinafter “John”) resides in New York. John was a full-time 

student at Reed College from approximately September 2010 until his expulsion from Reed in 

April 2014. 

27. Upon information and belief, defendant Jane Roe (hereinafter “Jane”) resides in 

Oregon. During the events described herein, Jane was a student at Reed. She is presently a fulltime student at Reed. 

28. Defendant Reed Institute (aka Reed College) (hereinafter “Reed”) is a private, 

liberal arts college and a domestic non-profit corporation incorporated in Oregon, with its 

principal place of business located at 3203 Southeast Woodstock Boulevard, Portland, Oregon 

97202. 

29. Reed is among the most elite liberal arts colleges in the United States. In 2006, 

Newsweek magazine named Reed as one of twenty-five “New Ivies,” listing it among “the 

nation’s elite colleges.” In 2012, Newsweek ranked Reed the 15th “most rigorous” college in the 

nation. According to self-published statistics, Reed has produced the second-highest number of 

Rhodes Scholars of any liberal arts college. A high percentage of its graduates go on to earn 

PhDs and other postgraduate degrees. 

30. At all times material hereto, Reed acted by and through its agents, servants, 

employees, and representatives, who were acting in the course and scope of their respective 

agencies or employment and/or in the promotion of Reed’s business, mission and/or affairs. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

31. Plaintiff invokes this Court’s original jurisdiction under Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 7 of 58
PAGE 8 – COMPLAINT 

32. Plaintiff also invokes this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 

because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs, and is between citizens of different states. 

33. Plaintiff also invokes this Court’s jurisdiction over related state common law and 

statutory claims under the principles of ancillary and/or pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

34. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue for this action properly lies in this judicial 

district because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims set forth 

below occurred in this district. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

2010: John Doe Accepts Reed’s Offer to Attend the School on Terms Described in Reed’s 

“Guidebook.” 

35. Prior to his enrollment at Reed in 2010, John was a highly accomplished high 

school student attending a college preparatory program. John spent his junior year of high 

school abroad in Beijing, China, where he attended a Chinese public school and lived with a 

Chinese family. Due to his impressive Mandarin language skills, John received a score of 5 on 

his Chinese Language Advanced Placement exam. 

36. John’s performance on college admission examinations was also impressive. On 

his SATs, John scored a 720 in Critical Reading (97th percentile), 670 in Math (89th percentile), 

and 680 in Writing (94th percentile). 

37. John was also involved in numerous high school extracurricular activities, 

including drama and theatrical productions, baseball, tennis, lacrosse, and wrestling. He also did 

volunteer work mentoring elementary students, among other things. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 8 of 58
PAGE 9 – COMPLAINT 

38. John applied to and was accepted by a number of highly competitive colleges and 

universities, including Reed. 

39. After careful consideration, John made a conscious and informed decision to 

continue his educational pursuits at Reed, and began classes for the 2010-2011 academic year. 

John selected Reed in part because of its unique educational philosophy, its progressive 

reputation, its academic rigor, its location, and the fact that Reed claimed to have the second 

highest rate of graduates who went on to receive graduate degrees, which was John’s ultimate 

educational goal. 

40. Reed provided John with a copy of its Guidebook (the “Guidebook”), which is 

compiled by the office of the Dean of the Faculty. 

41. The Guidebook contains certain of the college’s policies and procedures, 

including Reed’s “Community Policies and Practices,” which are comprised of such policies as 

the “Honor Principle” and the “Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Policy,” 

among others. 

42. These documents are also readily available on Reed’s website, which also 

contains other policies, regulations, promises, and representations made by Reed to its students. 

43. In consideration for his tuition and attendance at Reed, John received and was 

given assurances and promises by Reed that it would follow and comply with the numerous 

policies and procedures adopted and put forth by Reed, including those contained in the 

Guidebook. 

44. John relied on these assurances and promises when accepting Reed’s offer of 

admission. 

45. The Guidebook includes a “Notice of Nondiscrimination” that warrants: 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 9 of 58
PAGE 10 – COMPLAINT 

Reed College does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital 

status, military status, veteran status, genetic information, physical or mental 

disability, pregnancy, status as a parent, family relationship, or on the basis of any 

other category protected by law. 

46. Reed’s Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Policy (the “DHSM 

Policy”) similarly warrants and promises a commitment to nondiscrimination. 

47. The “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response at Reed” policy, also contained in 

the Guidebook, warrants and represents that “Reed’s approach to prevention and response 

includes four key elements”: 

- “Preventing sexual violence through education and action”; 

- “Providing support for survivors”; 

- “Investigating incidents swiftly and adjudicating them fairly”; and 

- “Protecting the community from sexual predators.” 

September 2012: John Doe and Jane Roe Begin Dating. 

48. John and Jane met at an on-campus Reed party in September 2012 while they 

were both students at Reed. After several casual sexual encounters, they began dating 

exclusively in November 2012. John and Jane regularly spent their free time together and often 

went on dates both on and off campus. During their relationship, John and Jane typically 

engaged in sexual intercourse several times per week and spent most nights together in John’s 

apartment. 

49. John and Jane also visited each other during school breaks. During winter break 

2012-2013, John spent two weeks with Jane and her family in Berlin, Germany, where the family 

was living at the time. Jane spent spring break 2013 with John and his family in West Palm 

Beach, Florida. In June 2013, Jane joined John’s family on a vacation in South Carolina. When 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 10 of 58
PAGE 11 – COMPLAINT 

they were apart, John and Jane corresponded regularly by electronic mail, text, telephone, and 

video chat. 

50. While they were dating, John and Jane also frequently experimented together with 

drugs, alcohol, and sex. Such experimentation is common among Reed students. 

51. These acts between John and Jane were always consensual, with each party 

knowingly and voluntarily partaking. Both John and Jane contributed the alcohol and drugs that 

they ingested, as both had easy access to drugs and alcohol at Reed. 

52. Reed’s permissive culture for drug and alcohol experimentation is well 

documented. 

July 25, 2013: John and Jane Willingly Engage in Group Sex with AM. 

53. On July 25, 2013, approximately ten months into their relationship, Jane went to 

John’s off-campus apartment, where several friends had gathered for a party. Most of the 

attendees were Reed students. It is common for Reed students to drink alcohol and ingest 

recreational drugs at parties hosted by other Reed students. 

54. At this party, Jane knowingly and voluntarily consumed some alcohol. Jane also 

knowingly and willingly ingested a small dose of MDMA, a drug of the phenethylamine and 

amphetamine classes of drugs. MDMA is known as a “party drug,” consumed primarily for its 

euphoric and empathogenic effects. 

55. Jane had knowingly and voluntarily consumed alcohol and MDMA (among other 

illegal drugs) on numerous other occasions. 

56. At this party, John also knowingly and voluntarily consumed some alcohol and 

willingly ingested a small dose of MDMA. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 11 of 58
PAGE 12 – COMPLAINT 

57. One of the other party attendees, a female who had just graduated from Reed but 

who was still attending classes there (AM), had also knowingly and voluntarily ingested alcohol 

and drugs during the party. 

58. At some point during the party, Jane, John, and AM went upstairs to John’s 

bedroom to engage in group sexual activities. All three willingly and knowingly went upstairs to 

John’s bedroom for this purpose. 

59. After John, Jane, and AM went upstairs to engage in sexual activities, both John 

and Jane yelled to another one of their friends at the residence, Reed student ML, asking her to 

join in the group sexual activity. ML declined the invitation. 

60. During their sexual activities, John, Jane, and AM each knowingly and willingly 

shared an additional small amount of MDMA, each ingesting an equal portion. 

61. Jane and AM engaged in sexual activities with each other, while John kissed both 

of them. Jane repeatedly complimented AM on her appearance, telling her that she was “hot.” 

Jane was a very active partner in the sexual encounter. Jane repeatedly asked AM, in a 

provocative fashion, whether she liked the sexual acts she was performing on her. Jane also 

asked John if he wanted to have intercourse with AM. 

62. The majority of the sexual activities occurred between Jane and AM. Jane 

initiated most of the sexual activity, and John was a more limited participant. He mainly kissed 

Jane and AM and engaged in light sexual touching. 

63. Jane was not incapacitated or unwilling to participate in the group sexual 

activities. To the contrary, she was fully aware of, consented to, and actively participated in all 

aspects of those activities. At no point during the group sexual activities did Jane ever tell John 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 12 of 58
PAGE 13 – COMPLAINT 

or AM to stop. She did not exhibit any apprehension, fear, or hesitancy. Rather, Jane was an 

enthusiastic participant. 

64. When John, Jane, and AM took a break from their group sexual activity, Jane 

again invited ML to join in the activity. ML again declined to participate. 

65. Following the break, John, Jane, and AM reinitiated sexual activities. The 

encounter involved multiple sessions of intercourse, which lasted until the next morning. 

66. When the sexual activity ended, John, Jane, and AM cuddled in bed and talked for 

several hours. They specifically discussed their desire to have another group sexual activity 

together because this one had gone so well. 

July to October 2013: John and Jane Continue Their Relationship and Jane Makes Clear 

Her Desire to Engage in Additional Group Sex, Including with AM. 

67. Jane did not seek medical or psychological treatment following this sexual 

encounter. Nor did she report the sexual encounter to any law enforcement bodies or school 

authorities at the time. She never reported the sexual encounter to the police. 

68. Following the July 25, 2013 group sex, Jane continued to date John as she had 

before. John and Jane continued their intimate sexual relationship and their regular use of drugs 

and alcohol. During this period, Jane spoke of and wrote of her desire to find additional 

opportunities for group sex with John. 

69. For instance, on August 23, 2014, Jane wrote to John on Facebook about her 

desire to have group sex with another female Reed student, who was “sooooo hot omg,” 

according to Jane. Jane messaged John that “[w]e have to make her a sex goal this upcoming 

semester.” 

70. John and Jane also specifically communicated about having sex again with AM. 

For instance, on August 5, 2013, from 7:36 pm PDT through 8:02 pm PDT, John and Jane 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 13 of 58
PAGE 14 – COMPLAINT 

exchanged several instant messages over Facebook about the possibility of another group sexual 

encounter with AM. 

71. During this Facebook chat, John inquired whether Jane would be interested in 

participating in sex with two additional partners (AM and someone else, in addition to John). 

Although Jane responded that she would be interested in a “foursome,” she stated she did not 

want to have sex with the fourth person proposed that night, because she was “fat,” “gross,” and 

“vile.” Jane did not state or insinuate that the last sexual encounter with AM was nonconsensual 

or otherwise unwanted, or that she did not want to have sex with AM again. 

72. John respected Jane’s desire not to participate in the group sexual activity he 

suggested on August 5, 2014. 

October 2013: John Doe and Jane Roe End Their Relationship After 

Jane Physically Assaults John. 

73. John and Jane ended their relationship in October 2013. 

74. Over time, their relationship had become infused with jealousy. Each accused the 

other of being unfaithful. Jane repeatedly threatened to end the relationship in an attempt to 

coerce John to act in certain ways, e.g., to avoid talking with other women. John and Jane had 

verbal altercations as a result of the jealousy. Typical of 19 and 20 year olds, each engaged in 

overheated and hurtful name-calling and other rhetoric directed at the other. 

75. Jane also repeatedly invaded John’s privacy by, among other things, stealing his 

cell phone and reviewing his text messages with other women and blocking other women’s 

phone numbers without his permission or knowledge. 

76. On one occasion, Jane went so far as to handcuff herself to a friend and force the 

friend to bring her to John’s apartment, after John had sent text messages to Jane stating that he 

did not want to see her. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 14 of 58
PAGE 15 – COMPLAINT 

77. Jane also physically struck John on several occasions. John has never physically 

harmed Jane. 

78. On or about October 26, 2013, John and Jane had a verbal altercation on campus 

after they had been drinking alcohol together. Jane escalated the argument by punching John in 

the face with a closed fist, causing a contusion and bleeding on John’s mouth. John tried to walk 

away from Jane, but Jane grabbed onto John and created a scene. Their mutual friends separated 

them, and John went to his apartment. 

79. Upon information and belief, to preempt a report that Jane feared John would 

make about her violence toward him, Jane reported the incident to Community Safety, alleging 

that John had somehow caused her to attack him. But, in Jane’s communications with 

Community Safety surrounding this incident of her aggression and her communications about 

her relationship with John, Jane never once suggested that John had ever physically touched her 

in any way without her consent, much less that he had raped her three months earlier (i.e., on 

July 25, 2013). 

80. Reed’s investigation into the October 26 incident concluded that Jane had indeed 

“struck [John] in the jaw with her fist, causing him to bleed from his mouth and to report that he 

had loose teeth.” Nevertheless, despite no evidence of physical aggression by John, Reed 

responded by instituting a mutual no-contact order between John and Jane. Because Jane is 

female and John is male, Reed did not take any disciplinary action against Jane for striking John 

in the face with a closed fist so hard that she drew blood and knocked two teeth loose. 

81. Following this incident, John ended his relationship with Jane. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 15 of 58
PAGE 16 – COMPLAINT 

March 2014: Eight Months after the July 25 Group Sex with AM—and Only after John 

Starts Dating Jane’s Friend—Jane Complains to Reed about a Sex Tape and, for the First 

Time, Accuses John of Sexual Assault in Connection with the July 25 Group Sex. 

82. In early spring 2014, John began casually dating another Reed student who was a 

mutual friend of his and Jane’s. The couple tried to hide their relationship from Jane, so as not to 

upset her and cause hard feelings. However, Jane found out about John’s new relationship and 

got angry. Jane and her friends started to ignore John’s new girlfriend, with whom they had 

previously been friendly. 

83. Around that same time, Jane also heard a rumor that John had shown someone a 

sexually explicit video that Jane and John had knowingly and voluntarily made while they were 

dating. 

84. Jane was angry that John was dating her friend. She was also purportedly angry 

about the rumor of John showing the video to someone. Jane decided to retaliate against John. 

85. On March 8, 2014, Jane sent an email to Gary Granger (“Granger”), Reed’s 

Director of Community Safety, requesting a meeting and alleging that John had violated the nocontact order that had been put in place after Jane punched John in the face. Jane informed 

Granger that she had heard a rumor that John had shown a sexually explicit video of her to at 

least one other person without her consent. 

86. Jane’s March 8, 2014 email to Granger made no mention of the July 25, 2013 

group sex with AM. Nor did it allege that John had ever assaulted Jane in any way. 

87. Jane and Granger met on March 11, 2014. During that meeting, Jane described 

the rumor she heard about the video. Jane made clear that she did not know to whom the video 

had allegedly been shown, but claimed to have heard about it through a friend who refused to 

provide names. She also did not know when the video had allegedly been shown. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 16 of 58
PAGE 17 – COMPLAINT 

88. After describing her concerns relating to the video, Jane, for the first time, falsely 

claimed to Community Safety that John had sexually assaulted her nearly eight months earlier, 

on the night of July 25, 2013. Granger invited Rowan Frost (“Dean Frost”), the Assistant Dean 

of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, to join the meeting at that time. 

89. Jane falsely claimed to Granger and Dean Frost that, on July 25, 2013, she had 

been coerced into having sex with John and AM while under the influence of MDMA. 

90. Granger told Jane that she could report her allegations to the police. Jane said she 

did not want to make a police report. 

Reed’s Policies and Procedures Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. 

91. Reed’s Guidebook sets forth the school’s policies and procedures for investigating 

and adjudicating alleged disciplinary violations, including alleged violations of Reed’s sexual 

misconduct policies. 

92. In July 2013, when the alleged incident occurred, the applicable policy was 

Reed’s “Sexual Harassment Policy.” That policy was effective until September 20, 2013. 

93. Reed later adopted the DHSM Policy, which was effective starting September 20, 

2013. That policy was in effect at the time Jane brought her allegations to Granger and when she 

filed her complaint with the SMB. 

94. The DHSM Policy “details and explicitly prohibits specific forms of harassment 

and encourages the reporting of these prohibited behaviors.” It further provides that: 

This policy is required by, and is as a whole intended to be consistent with, Title 

IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 34 CFR Part 106, and any other 

applicable law or regulation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of any 

legally protected category in the educational programs or activities of colleges 

and universities, in employment, or in any other relationship which is governed by 

law. Reed College also acknowledges and intends to comply with its legal 

responsibilities under federal or Oregon law, including the reporting 

responsibilities of the Clery Act, 34 CFR 668.46. If any provisions of this policy 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 17 of 58
PAGE 18 – COMPLAINT 

are contrary to or interfere with any applicable law, that law will supersede the 

inconsistent policy provisions. 

95. The DHSM Policy adopts a “reasonable person” standard, which it defines as a 

“hypothetical person who is level-headed and rational, aware of community norms, and not 

under the influence of a judgment-impairing substance.” In terms of consent, it suggests that 

“parties may use the reasonable person standard when assessing whether a reasonable person in 

the same context as the respondent would believe that they had consent in that context.” 

96. The DHSM Policy provides that reports of sexual misconduct may be made to 

Reed’s Title IX Coordinator (or designee thereof) or to Community Safety. 

97. According to the DHSM Policy, reporting and filing a formal complaint are two 

distinct concepts. Depending on the nature of a report, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee 

thereof) will determine the type of investigation to follow. Investigations will not necessarily 

result in disciplinary action. Investigations may result in the initiation of a formal complaint by 

the Title IX Coordinator (or designee). 

98. The DHSM Policy provides that students who are unsure as to whether to make a 

formal complaint may undertake confidential preliminary discussions of possible violations with 

a counselor in Reed’s Health & Counseling Center. The DHSM Policy does not recommend or 

even suggest that the student may or should seek counseling or advice from Community Safety 

as to whether or not to file a formal complaint. 

99. Formal complaints may be made to the appropriate body for resolving the 

complaint, or to the Title IX Coordinator, who is to forward the complaint as necessary. 

Complaints made by students are received by the Student Judicial Board or by the SMB and are 

handled in accordance with Reed’s Judicial Board Code. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 18 of 58
PAGE 19 – COMPLAINT 

100. The DHSM Policy also provides that the above-described procedures supplement, 

and do not replace, other remedies for acts that constitute violations of the policy. It further 

provides that students have the option at all times to file a criminal compliant with law 

enforcement and/or to seek a civil remedy, in addition to or instead of invoking Reed’s 

procedures. 

101. Reed’s “Title IX Coordinator Resource Page” further details the procedures to be 

followed from the time of an initial report of sexual assault, sexual exploitation, or sexual 

harassment, through the investigation and preparation of the investigation report. Those 

procedures provide that “[t]he Respondent is to be notified of the complaint within two (2) 

business days, or as quickly as practicable. Notification will in most cases be the responsibility 

of the investigator.” 

102. Reed’s policies provide that the Title IX Coordinator or any other member of 

Reed’s staff is empowered to take action whether or not a student formally complains. 

Bias in Reed’s Sexual Misconduct Policy. 

103. Reed’s “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response” policy is facially biased in that 

it refers to those alleging sexual misconduct as “survivors.” 

104. Use of the word “survivor,” as opposed to a value-neutral word such as “accuser” 

or “complainant,” inescapably presupposes the guilt of the accused from the outset, prior to the 

commencement of any adjudicative proceedings. This language demonstrates an institutional 

climate of bias against the accused (who are typically male) and effectively shifts the burden to 

the accused to prove his innocence rather than requiring the accuser to prove her allegations. 

105. Reed’s “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response” policy also provides for certain 

support for “survivors” that is not equally afforded to those who are accused. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 19 of 58
PAGE 20 – COMPLAINT 

March 2014: Reed Fails to Abide by the Requirement to Notify John of Jane’s Allegations. 

106. Pursuant to Reed’s published procedures, Granger was required to notify John of 

Jane’s March 11, 2014 complaint “within two (2) business days, or as quickly as is practicable.” 

107. Granger did not inform John of Jane’s allegations as required. Instead, he and 

Dean Frost entered into an impermissible agreement with Jane to delay notifying John so that 

Jane would be better positioned “to deal with negative fallout” while completing her 

examinations. Jane also wanted to enjoy her spring break. Granger and Dean Frost, in violation 

of Reed’s procedures, “agreed that [they] would engage[] in aspects of the investigation that 

could be done without contacting [John Doe] first” so Jane could finish her exams and enjoy her 

spring break. 

108. Granger commenced his investigation on March 11, 2014, but did not inform John 

of those allegations until April 3, 2014—more than twenty days later than Reed’s procedures 

required—when Granger emailed John asking him to meet to discuss a complaint that had been 

made against him. John was thus deprived of those critical three weeks to which he was entitled, 

during which time he could have investigated and prepared his defense to Jane’s allegations. All 

the while, Granger was secretly conducting his own investigation.

Granger Initially Focuses His Investigation on Jane’s Allegations Relating to the Video, but 

Turns up Nothing. 

109. Granger, as Director of Community Safety, investigated Jane’s allegations. 

Granger’s investigation initially focused on the allegations relating to the video, which were 

initially the centerpiece of Jane’s complaint. 

110. On March 12, 2014, the day after he met with Jane, Granger interviewed Jane’s 

friend who had purportedly “heard” from others that John showed them the sexually explicit 

video of John and Jane. This friend would only say that “two students” had told her that John 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 20 of 58
PAGE 21 – COMPLAINT 

had shown them the video. The friend did not identify the alleged witnesses and declined to tell 

Granger “about how the video was displayed or the context” or “anything specific.” (At the 

hearing, Jane’s friend changed her story to say that “at least” one student told her that they had 

seen the video.)

111. The same day, Granger requested a search of Reed’s “computing resources and 

information associated with [John Doe] that could contain the kinds of video files or image files 

that [Jane Roe] referenced.” Granger also contacted the Portland Police Bureau (“PPB”) on 

March 16, 2014 to discuss the video. 

112. The investigation of the video incident revealed nothing. Reed’s Chief 

Information Officer found “no evidence of any video or image files present that depicted [Jane 

Roe].” The names of the students who allegedly saw the video never surfaced. PPB informed 

Granger that, even if a showing were confirmed, no criminal statute had been violated. 

113. When John was finally informed about the investigation, he readily cooperated 

with Granger to locate and delete any copies of videos showing him and/or Jane engaged in 

sexual acts that remained in his possession. John never posted any such video to any internet or 

intranet site. 

Granger Turns His Attention to the Allegations Relating to the July 25 Group Sex and 

Conducts a Grossly Inadequate and Biased Investigation. 

114. Granger’s investigation into Jane’s belated allegations of sexual misconduct 

relating to the July 25 group sex was woefully incomplete and biased against John from the very 

beginning. Among other failings, Granger did not interview key witnesses and neglected to 

pursue obvious lines of inquiry.

115. Cases of alleged sexual misconduct between acquaintances or couples are often 

difficult to investigate because typically, only the accused and the accuser are in the room during 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 21 of 58
PAGE 22 – COMPLAINT 

the key events. But in this case, Granger knew after meeting with Jane on March 11, 2014 that a 

third person, AM, had been in the room and had participated in the sexual activity. Inexplicably, 

however, Granger failed to contact AM until April 3, 2014, three weeks after his investigation 

began, three days after he urged Jane to file her formal complaint “as soon as possible,” and one 

day after Jane filed her formal complaint. Granger had obviously concluded that John was guilty 

without talking with the neutral eyewitness who had participated in the sexual activity.

116. On April 3, 2014, Granger finally sent an email to AM requesting that she provide 

a statement about the incident.

117. During her April 4, 2014 interview, AM’s immediate reaction to Granger’s 

questioning was that it did not “seem like a case of sexual misconduct.” Like John, AM 

described how she, John, and Jane went upstairs together for the purpose of having sex and then 

“had sex for several hours.” She reported no hesitation on Jane’s part, stating that Jane “seemed 

to have been enjoying the encounter at the time.” AM refuted Jane’s allegation that John had 

told AM that Jane would need to “be convinced” to have sex with them. 

118. During the interview, AM showed Granger her description of the encounter and a 

Facebook message she sent the next day, “commenting about having enjoyed [being] with” John 

and Jane. Neither document was made part of the record or Granger’s investigative file.

119. AM also told Granger that she talked with Jane a couple of days after the sexual 

encounter and Jane said that she “had enjoyed the experience.” 

120. Stunningly, in his final investigative report, Granger summarized AM’s 

eyewitness testimony—which refuted every significant aspect of Jane’s story—by stating merely 

that “[AM] confirmed that the incident took place, but reported not being aware of [Jane] having 

refused consent or not being a willing participant.” 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 22 of 58
PAGE 23 – COMPLAINT 

121. Granger failed altogether to interview another critical witness to the events of July 

25: ML, the female Reed student whom Jane twice invited to join in the group sexual activity 

that night. Even though Granger knew that his investigative report was to be submitted to the 

SMB by April 9, 2014, he did not email ML until April 8 to request a meeting, and then only 

sent one email to her. Receiving no response to that email, Granger never again attempted to 

contact ML. He never tried to reach her by telephone or find her on campus. 

122. Despite his awareness of facts directly refuting Jane’s allegations against John, 

Granger never interviewed anyone regarding Jane’s motives for initiating her complaint or 

questioned whether she fabricated the allegations.

123. Additionally, Granger failed to ask obvious and important questions in the 

interviews that he did conduct. For instance, he never confronted Jane with the statements made 

by John or AM, nor did he ask her to explain the material discrepancies between her story and 

that testimony.

124. Despite clear evidence that Jane was lying about the sexual assault—including 

AM’s statements that corroborated John’s account in all material respects—Granger did not 

investigate whether Jane had made a false complaint against John. 

125. Granger did not act as an impartial investigator. Instead, he acted as an advocate 

for Jane. 

April 2, 2014: At Granger’s Urging, Jane Files a 

Formal Complaint with the Sexual Misconduct Board. 

126. On March 31, 2014, Granger encouraged Jane to file her report as “soon as 

possible.” As a result, Jane submitted her formal complaint to the SMB on April 2, 2014, the 

day before Granger completed his investigation. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 23 of 58
PAGE 24 – COMPLAINT 

127. In her formal complaint, Jane alleged that John violated the DHSM “in two 

ways”: by (1) “shar[ing] sexually explicit video footage of me without my consent and thereby 

sexually exploit[ing] me” and (2) by “engag[ing] in unwanted sexual behavior with me when I 

was incapacitated and therefore unable to give consent.” She described the July 25th sexual 

encounter as a “sexual assault.” 

128. Jane also alleged that John violated the No Retaliation Clause of the No Contact 

Order by showing the sexually explicit video without her consent. 

129. Finally, Jane’s formal complaint to the SMB contained a new allegation not 

previously reported to Community Safety during the thirteen months in which she dated John or 

during the five months since they broke up, including in any of her many communications with 

Community Safety during that period: Jane now claimed that her prior relationship with John 

was “emotionally and verbally abusive” and thus violated the Honor Principle “by causing [her] 

to endure unnecessary trauma and suffering.” 

April 9, 2014: Granger Prepares an Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Misleading 

 Investigative Report. 

130. Reed’s Title IX “Resource Page” promises that the investigator will “prepare an 

investigative report that summarizes all of the pertinent information and facts.” 

131. Granger’s investigative report of Jane’s allegations (the “Investigative Report”) 

violated Reed’s procedures because it impermissibly included opinion rather than “facts,” did not 

include all of the “pertinent information,” and impermissibly characterized the evidence. 

132. For instance, Granger summarized AM’s interview in a highly misleading fashion 

as described earlier. 

133. The Investigative Report did not acknowledge John and Jane’s history of 

consensual group sexual encounters. It nowhere disclosed that Jane stayed in the sexual 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 24 of 58
PAGE 25 – COMPLAINT 

relationship with John for three months after the alleged incident, and that she expressed interest 

during that time in engaging in additional group sexual encounters, including sex with AM. 

134. The Investigative Report failed to disclose that Jane had waited eight months 

before reporting the incident, and that she had communicated at least twice with Community 

Safety during those months without ever mentioning any alleged sexual assault. It also failed to 

discuss Jane’s potential motives for bringing the complaint or for fabricating her allegations. 

135. The Investigative Report impermissibly included a “credibility determination,” 

unfavorable to John, which was wholly Granger’s personal opinion and not sanctioned by Reed’s 

policies. 

Although Three Students Inarguably Ingested Roughly the Same Amount of Drugs 

and Alcohol and Engaged in the Same Group Sexual Activity on July 25, 2013, Reed Failed 

to Initiate any Disciplinary Proceedings against the Two Female Participants. 

136. Three individuals—John, Jane, and AM—ingested roughly the same volume of 

drugs and alcohol on July 25, 2013. All three then participated in hours of group sexual activity 

together. 

137. Reed elected not to initiate a formal complaint against AM because she is a 

woman who engaged in sexual activities with another woman. Reed’s charging decision and its 

different treatment of John was impermissibly based on gender. 

138. Reed also failed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Jane, even though all 

three participants had ingested roughly the same volume of intoxicants and engaged in sexual 

activity. If Reed concluded that Jane was incapable of consenting to sexual activity because she 

had ingested intoxicants, it should have concluded that John and AM were similarly incapable of 

consenting to sexual activity. Reed initiated disciplinary proceedings only against John because 

he is male, and not against Jane or AM because they are female. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 25 of 58
PAGE 26 – COMPLAINT 

Policies and Procedures Governing Reed’s Sexual Misconduct Board. 

139. The Guidebook provides that formal complaints of sexual misconduct made by 

students against current or former students are heard and decided by the SMB. The Guidebook 

defines “sexual misconduct” as sexual assault, sexual harassment, and any other form of 

dishonorable conduct of a sexual nature. 

140. Reed’s Judicial Board Code sets forth the policies and procedures that govern the 

SMB hearing. According to the Guidebook, the SMB has “the responsibility to investigate 

complaints, determine facts, and recommend action appropriate to the circumstances of the case 

and the ethos of an educational institution.” 

141. The SMB consists of five staff (non-student, non-faculty) members, together with 

the nine full-time student members of the Student Judicial Board. Each complaint is heard by a 

panel of five members of the SMB. 

142. Reed represented and agreed with John, through its published Guidebook, that its 

SMB members would be adequately trained in matters relating to sexual misconduct, as well as 

in the adjudication of violations of the Honor Principle. 

143. According to the Guidebook, the SMB, except where specified, uses the 

procedures of the Judicial Board, which are as follows: 

- Upon receipt of the complaint, the Judicial Board shall meet to discuss the specific 

procedures for handling the case. 

- The Judicial Board Chair shall announce the meetings and hearings of the Judicial 

Board to the Judicial Board members at least two days before such meetings or 

hearings. The procedural aide should provide each person requested to appear before 

the board with such a request at least two days before s/he is scheduled to appear. 

- The procedural aide should inform the respondent of the grounds on which s/he has 

allegedly committed a violation by providing the respondent with a copy of the 

written complaint at least four days before the hearing. 

- The Judicial Board reserves the right to set reasonable limits on the length of 

hearings, testimony, and opening and closing statements. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 26 of 58
PAGE 27 – COMPLAINT 

- The Judicial Board, not individual parties, is responsible for calling witnesses to a 

hearing. 

- The Judicial Board reserves the right to decline to accept the testimony of any witness 

who lacks direct knowledge of the alleged violation or who is redundant of another 

witness. 

- At the conclusion of a case, the five member panel hearing the case shall deliberate in 

closed meetings to arrive at the Judicial Board’s determinations of fact and 

recommendations. 

- In deciding if a violation has occurred, four of the five voting members of the Judicial 

Board need only determine that the Judicial Board has evidence that has more 

convincing force than that opposed to it in order to come to a decision. 

- If the Judicial Board finds a respondent to have committed a violation, it may 

recommend sanctions the nature and severity of which shall be appropriate to the 

violation, its circumstances, and the history of offenses by the respondent. 

- All findings of fact and recommendations of the Judicial Board must be ratified by at 

least four of the five Judicial Board members hearing the case. The findings and 

recommendations, together with the case file, shall be forwarded to the President or 

his or her designee for a decision. 

April 2014: The Sexual Misconduct Board Places Restrictions on John Doe that Prevent 

Him from Preparing an Adequate Defense. 

144. Reed did not provide John, a college junior with no legal training, an adequate 

opportunity to prepare or present a defense. 

145. John was notified via email on April 4, 2014, by the “Procedural Aide” assigned 

by the SMB, that “the Board has received a letter from [Jane Roe] regarding your involvement in 

an incident that [Jane Roe] believes constituted a violation of the Honor Principle. The Board 

has decided to hear the case at 9:00 am on Saturday, April 12, 2014.” 

146. There was no indication that John posed any continuing threat that might 

otherwise have required such swift action—the incident had occurred nine months earlier. 

Furthermore, John’s accuser had requested that no official action be taken immediately so she 

could prepare for exams and enjoy spring break. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 27 of 58
PAGE 28 – COMPLAINT 

147. Despite the fact that John faced severe sanctions that could have a life-changing 

impact for him, the April 4 email did not encourage John to seek legal advice. Instead, he was 

told he could contact “school counselors” should he “need personal support.” 

148. The April 4 email emphasized the “confidentiality” of the proceedings. John was 

informed that he could contact mental health practitioners for guidance (“counselors, therapists, 

psychiatrists, etc.”) but was not told that he could contact his parents or a lawyer about the 

pending case. Reed did not separately notify his parents of the allegations. 

149. The April 4 email instructed John to identify to the SMB his potential witnesses 

within five days, by April 9, 2014. 

150. The April 4 email contained conflicting and confusing information as to John’s 

ability to contact witnesses. Reed instructed John to “not contact witnesses directly about the 

case itself”; however, Reed stated he could still “discuss the events and experiences that led to 

the case with them.” The April 4 email then made clear that “the Board expects that neither you 

nor the complainant(s) will attempt to contact any party or witness involved in the proceedings 

about the case. If you have any contact regarding this case with a complainant or witness, on 

their initiation or your own, please notify [the Board] immediately.” (Emphasis added.) 

151. John reasonably understood this directive to be a “gag order” preventing him from 

contacting his own witnesses (or anyone else who might participate in the SMB hearing) about 

the case. Accordingly, he did not contact any witnesses to determine whether they could and/or 

would testify on his behalf. 

The Hearing Process Violated John Doe’s Rights and Reed’s Own Procedures. 

152. The SMB hearing process did not adequately safeguard John’s rights and violated 

federal law and Reed’s own procedures. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 28 of 58
PAGE 29 – COMPLAINT 

153. The SMB panel hearing John’s case consisted of three students, Reed’s 

Performing Arts Librarian, and Reed’s Associate Registrar. Those individuals acted 

simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. They lacked the necessary training, 

experience, skills, and (in the case of the students) maturity—as well as adequate time to 

prepare—to perform these critical functions at John’s hearing. 

154. John was not permitted to be represented or accompanied by counsel in the SMB 

hearing. 

155. Jane was permitted to bring a student, RF, to support her during the SMB hearing. 

At that time, RF was a member of the SMB and participated in regular meetings with the SMB 

panel that heard John’s case. 

156. The SMB had fewer than ten days to prepare for the hearing, which was not 

sufficient to adequately review and understand the Investigative Report; to review requests for 

witnesses to determine who would participate in the hearing; to review evidence submitted in 

advance by the parties; and to prepare questions for the complainant, respondent, and all of their 

witnesses. 

157. Although the Guidebook mandates a preponderance of the evidence standard in a 

student disciplinary hearing involving allegations of sexual assault, it does not state whether the 

complainant or the respondent bears the burden of proof. The Guidebook also does not set clear 

guidelines for determining the admissibility of evidence. 

158. The SMB impermissibly placed the burden of proof on John to prove his 

innocence. 

159. Reed empowered the SMB to compel students to testify at SMB hearings. 

Nevertheless, the SMB failed to take the necessary steps to obtain testimony from the two most 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 29 of 58
PAGE 30 – COMPLAINT 

important witnesses in the case: AM and ML, both of whom were female eyewitnesses to 

critical events on the main night in question. 

160. Notwithstanding Reed’s promise that the SMB “is responsible for calling 

witnesses to a hearing,” the SMB took no action whatsoever to compel AM’s or ML’s 

attendance. As a result, John was effectively denied the opportunity to present the testimony of 

any witness on his behalf, including the two most important eyewitnesses to the events in 

question, one of whom actually participated in the sexual encounter at the center of the case. 

161. The SMB did not allow John to ask any questions of Jane or any other witness. 

Rather, the SMB required John to submit proposed questions to the SMB, who decided which, if 

any, of the questions to ask. The SMB refused to ask 80 to 90 percent of the cross-examination 

questions that John propounded, despite their obvious relevance. John was never given the 

opportunity to explain the importance of the questions to his defense. 

162. When John attempted to proffer evidence of Jane’s obvious biases and motives, 

the SMB absolutely precluded him from doing so, improperly deeming such evidence 

“irrelevant.” 

163. The SMB accepted Jane’s testimony, without challenging her to explain the 

obvious discrepancies between her testimony and other reliable evidence in the record. 

164. With respect to the allegations that John showed a sexually explicit video without 

Jane’s consent, the witness(es) who allegedly saw the tape never came forward to the SMB, nor 

have he/she/they ever been identified. John was never presented with the name(s) of the 

anonymous witness(es), and he never had an opportunity to confront his anonymous accuser(s).

May 5, 2014: The Sexual Misconduct Board Issues a Faulty Decision That Was Based on 

Impermissible Gender Bias. 

165. Although John was provided only eight days to prepare for his hearing, the SMB 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 30 of 58
PAGE 31 – COMPLAINT 

took more than a month to render its decision. Reed informed John by letter dated May 5, 2014 

that the SMB concluded that he had violated the Sexual Harassment Policy (effective until 

September 2013), the DHSM Policy (effective after September 2013), and the Reed Honor 

Principle. According to the letter, the SMB examined four issues: “(1) Did [John] sexually 

assault [Jane] on July 25th, 2013? (2) Did [John] sexually exploit [Jane] in January 2014? (3) Did 

[John] violate the No Retaliation clause of the No Contact order between himself and [Jane]? and 

(4) Were [John]’s actions during his relationship with [Jane] sufficient to constitute an abusive 

relationship dynamic?” The SMB answered yes to all four questions and imposed sanctions. 

Demonstrating its careless attitude, the SMB misspelled John’s last name no less than five times 

in its findings of violations. 

166. Because John was effectively precluded from presenting a defense at his hearing, 

the SMB adopted Jane’s allegations wholesale and ruled in her favor. For a number of reasons, 

this decision was faulty, arbitrary, and capricious. 

167. For example, in deciding that John violated Reed’s policies by showing the 

sexually explicit video without Jane’s consent, the SMB impermissibly relied solely on double 

hearsay testimony and failed even to identify, much less to give John an opportunity to confront, 

his anonymous accuser(s). 

168. In deciding that John sexually assaulted Jane on July 25, 2013, the SMB reached 

its conclusion without hearing the critical testimony of AM, who actually participated in the 

hours-long group sex, or ML, the other female student who Jane twice urged to join in that 

activity while it was occurring. 

169. The SMB published factual “findings” that ignored virtually all of the mitigating 

and contradictory evidence discussed herein. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 31 of 58
PAGE 32 – COMPLAINT 

170. The SMB also impermissibly applied a biased standard that made the male solely 

responsible for wrongdoing when all of the involved parties had ingested roughly equal amounts 

of drugs and alcohol. Reed took no disciplinary action whatsoever against the two female 

participants, Jane and AM. 

171. The gender bias implicit in the SMB’s decision-making is evidenced by the fact 

that Reed and the SMB failed to pursue disciplinary actions against AM, even though Jane 

specifically testified in the hearing that AM had initiated the sexual contact amongst the three of 

them. 

172. In deciding that John violated Reed’s policies by being emotionally and verbally 

abusive to Jane, the SMB failed to consider Jane’s own conduct in the relationship, which was 

physically, emotionally, and verbally abusive to John. 

173. In terms of sanctions, the SMB recommended that John be expelled immediately 

from Reed College, that he be excluded from campus and from all Reed College events, and that 

a record of the disciplinary proceedings be included in John’s disciplinary file and released in 

accordance with school policy. 

174. Reed’s decision to punish John so severely was motivated in part by the fact that 

John, a male, defended himself. In a May 5, 2014 letter, Reed’s Dean of Student Services Mike 

Brody (who was assigned by Reed to review the SMB decision) concluded that John’s sanctions 

were appropriate because he “expressed neither contrition nor regret” as purportedly evidenced 

by the fact that he “accused the complainant and witnesses of fabricating testimony.” In other 

words, Reed chose to punish John so severely in part because he maintained his innocence. 

Dean Brody did not attend the SMB hearing and made these sweeping statements about John’s 

demeanor, attitude, and motivations without meeting with or speaking with John. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 32 of 58
PAGE 33 – COMPLAINT 

Reed’s Policies and Procedures Governing the Appeals Process.

175. Reed’s Guidebook provides that, in all cases, the complainant and the respondent 

shall have the opportunity to appeal the SMB’s decision to the Appeals Board, which consists of 

three students (including the President of the Student Body and a Student Senator who is not a 

member of the Judicial Board), two members of the faculty, and the Chair of the Community 

Affairs Committee as an ex-officio, non-voting member. 

176. Following the Appeals Board’s decision, one final appeal may be made to the 

President of the College, so long as it is received no later than ten working days after the 

decision on a previous appeal made to another body. 

The Appeals Process Was Faulty and Biased and Resulted in an 

Arbitrary and Capricious Decision. 

177. Following the May 5, 2014 letter announcing the SMB’s decision, John filed a 

timely appeal. He had requested and was granted a brief extension of time for his appeal. 

178. John appealed the Board’s decision on each of the three permissible grounds 

under Reed’s Judicial Board Code: (1) that the sanctions were excessively severe; (2) that 

numerous procedural errors significantly affected the outcome of the hearing; and (3) that new or 

newly discovered evidence was of a character that would have significantly affected the outcome 

of the hearing and the decisions that followed. 

179. By letter dated July 8, 2014, the Appeals Board denied John’s appeal. 

180. The Appeals Board stated that “the sanction of expulsion is one of the sanctions 

available to the SMB, and it is neither unprecedented nor exceptional.” 

181. The Appeals Board also claimed that “the sanctions were appropriately justified 

with reference to the findings of fact and violations.” In fact, none of the three violations found 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 33 of 58
PAGE 34 – COMPLAINT 

by the SMB was supported by sufficient evidence and, in any event, none properly warranted the 

draconian sanction of expulsion. 

182. The Appeals Board improperly discounted the serious concerns John raised 

concerning the manner in which the investigation and hearing were conducted. Although John’s 

appellate brief catalogued numerous errors, the Appeals Board summarily and wrongly 

concluded that no error occurred that would have changed the outcome of the hearing. 

183. The Appeals Board ignored altogether the additional grounds that John raised in 

his appeal, including that: (1) the SMB’s findings relating to the video were based solely on 

anonymous hearsay testimony; and (2) the SMB interrupted John’s testimony and limited that 

testimony in a way that was not done with respect to any other witness. The Appeals Board 

failed even to consider these grounds in its decision. 

184. On August 4, 2014, John submitted a timely final appeal to President Kroger. 

That final appeal catalogued the Appeals Board’s errors. It also reiterated that: (1) the sanctions 

were excessively severe; (2) numerous procedural errors significantly affected the outcome of 

the hearing; and (3) new or newly discovered evidence was of a character that would have 

significantly affected the outcome of the hearing and the decisions that followed. 

185. The “new evidence” that John included as part of his appeal consisted of two 

signed sworn declarations: one from AM, who participated in the July 25, 2013 group sexual 

activity; and one from ML, whom Jane had twice invited to join in that activity. These were the 

two witnesses whose attendance the SMB had failed to ensure at John’s hearing, and whose 

testimony had therefore not been considered in assessing either John’s culpability or the 

appropriate sanctions if he were found culpable. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 34 of 58
PAGE 35 – COMPLAINT 

186. In her sworn declaration, AM made clear that Jane was a willing and enthusiastic 

participant in the July 25 sexual encounter, and that Jane had inquired as to whether AM was 

enjoying the sexual acts that Jane was performing on her. It was clear to AM that none of the 

participants was incapacitated and that consent was given by all participants. AM also recalled 

Jane telling her several days later that she “had enjoyed the experience.” 

187. In her sworn declaration, ML made clear that Jane twice propositioned her to join 

in the July 25 group sexual activity. ML understood Jane to be a willing participant who 

consented to the sexual encounter and who did not appear to be incapacitated in any way. Jane 

had previously experimented with other drugs in ML’s presence. 

188. In her sworn declaration, ML also spoke to the volatility of John and Jane’s 

relationship and the role that Jane played in antagonizing and abusing John. ML testified that 

Jane was devastated to learn that John was dating Jane’s friend, and ML believed that Jane 

would be likely to lash out against John by falsely initiating disciplinary proceedings against 

him. 

189. By letter dated August 29, 2014, President Kroger informed the parties that, in 

light of the “new evidence” John provided in his final appeal, Jane would be given a period of 60 

days to submit “any additional information or evidence she believes is relevant to the case prior 

to final disposition.” Neither the Guidebook nor any other Reed policy provides for such an 

extraordinary accommodation for an accuser. Furthermore, the 60-day response period afforded 

to Jane, a female, contrasts sharply with the mere eight days that John, a male, was given to 

prepare for an entire disciplinary hearing, and the ten days allotted to him to prepare his appeal. 

190. In this same letter, President Kroger explained that, regardless of whether Jane 

provided new information during that 60-day response period, President Kroger would not 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 35 of 58
PAGE 36 – COMPLAINT 

accept any additional information from John, thereby preemptively denying John the opportunity 

to respond to whatever Jane might submit. 

191. Jane did not respond to President Kroger’s letter and did not submit any new 

information or evidence. She did not contest the sworn declarations by AM and ML in any way, 

thereby implicitly conceding their accuracy and validity. 

192. By letter dated October 30, 2014, President Kroger notified the parties that more 

than 60 days had passed without Jane submitting any additional information or evidence and that 

he would make a decision based on the totality of the record. 

193. Despite Jane’s failure to challenge or rebut the allegations contained in the sworn 

declarations from the two female eyewitnesses, President Kroger affirmed the original sanction 

against John by letter dated November 11, 2014. The decision was arbitrary and capricious and 

based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts, mischaracterization of critical evidence, and 

reliance on evidence outside the record. Further, the decision was improper because it went 

beyond the issues presented for appeal and adopted new reasons for upholding John’s expulsion 

that were contrary to determinations made by the SMB in its original proceeding. 

194. President Kroger based his decision, in part, on impermissible conclusions related 

to John’s alleged drug activity, namely that he distributed drugs on campus. This was not one of 

the alleged violations identified in Jane’s formal SMB complaint nor was it addressed or 

considered by the SMB during the hearing. In fact, John was expressly instructed by the SMB 

(as they interrupted him to cut off his testimony) that he was not to discuss the alleged conduct, 

as it was not “relevant” to the hearing. Moreover, the SMB’s findings of fact and violation, as 

well as the sanctions imposed, did not relate to this alleged drug activity. President Kroger’s sua 

sponte decision during the final appeal to justify John’s sanctions on these new grounds was thus 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 36 of 58
PAGE 37 – COMPLAINT 

arbitrary and capricious, based on information for which John was not permitted to present a 

defense, and in violation of Reed’s policies which do not permit findings of violations not 

contained in the complaint. 

195. Additionally, although both AM and ML forcefully and clearly corroborated 

John’s testimony that Jane had consented, President Kroger mischaracterized and unfairly 

discredited their sworn declarations, notwithstanding Jane’s failure to rebut that testimony. 

196. President Kroger’s and Reed’s decision to discipline John was impermissibly 

gender-biased. For example, President Kroger concluded that AM and ML, the two female 

eyewitnesses who provided sworn declarations, “were apparently on MDMA at the time of the 

events, and thus their ability to judge the degree of impairment of [Jane Roe] at that time is 

subject to question.” But even though John had ingested roughly equivalent amounts of 

intoxicants, President Kroger and Reed determined that John was able to judge the degree of 

Jane’s impairment to the point that he should have concluded that Jane was unable to provide 

consent. 

197. President Kroger and Reed made that finding notwithstanding Jane’s two 

invitations to ML to participate in the sexual activity, her active participation in that activity with 

AM and John for hours, and the fact both eyewitnesses—AM and ML—perceived that Jane 

showed no outward appearance of intoxication or inability to consent. 

198. Another example of President Kroger’s and Reed’s gender bias is their conclusion 

that any consent Jane may have given to the July 25 sexual activity was “not valid” because she 

had consumed MDMA and alcohol. But if Jane was unable to consent to the sexual activity, 

John—who had consumed roughly the same amount of intoxicants—was, by definition, also 

unable to consent. But Reed disciplined only John. Reed did not take any disciplinary action 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 37 of 58
PAGE 38 – COMPLAINT 

against Jane or AM for engaging in sexual activity with John without his consent. Nor did Reed 

take any action against Jane or AM for engaging in nonconsensual sexual activity with each 

other. Instead, Reed took disciplinary action—the most severe available—only against John, the 

sole male in the group. 

199. Particularly in light of sharp public criticism of Reed appearing in the press and 

elsewhere, President Kroger lacked the objectivity and impartiality necessary to provide John 

with a fair and equitable review of the SMB’s findings and the severe penalties it imposed. 

John’s fate was preordained; Reed and President Kroger needed to appear to the public, as well 

as to Reed’s students and their parents, that Reed was “tough” on sexual assault allegations 

brought by female students against male students, notwithstanding compelling evidence 

establishing that Jane’s core allegations were fabricated. 

John Doe’s Own Sexual Assault at Reed. 

200. John was the victim of an earlier sexual assault by another Reed student. In June 

2012, after celebrating his birthday with friends, John returned to his residence. He awoke later 

that night to a female Reed student trying to remove his pants. The female student then started to 

perform oral sex on John and tried to engage in further sexual activities despite John’s repeated 

protests and incapacitated state. The student eventually left. John awoke the next morning 

naked from the waist down. 

201. John later reported the incident to Community Safety. A Community Safety 

officer (“George”) instructed John to report the incident directly to Granger, but Granger was off 

duty. Displaying no sense of urgency, George told John that he would set up a meeting between 

John and Granger for the following week. 

202. When John finally met with Granger, Granger interrogated him and treated him as 

a target of the investigation, rather than a complainant or victim. Granger did not ensure the 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 38 of 58
PAGE 39 – COMPLAINT 

attendance of Dean Frost (or a similarly situated administrator) at their meeting, as he had when 

Jane brought her allegations of sexual assault to him. 

203. In sharp contrast to his instruction to Jane to file her complaint against John “as 

soon as possible,” Granger actively discouraged John from filing a formal case against the 

female student. Despite the evidence that substantiated John’s claims, John was informed by 

Reed that the school would close the investigation without action. 

John’s Academic Career, Professional Future, and Reputation Have Been 

Irreparably Damaged by Reed’s Illegal and Tortious Conduct. 

204. As a result of Reed’s unlawful actions, John’s reputation has been irreparably 

damaged, his academic career has been destroyed, and his economic future has been severely 

compromised. 

205. Upon information and belief, the vast majority of colleges and universities have 

transfer and admission policies that explicitly forbid the acceptance of students who have been 

expelled from a college or university for sexual misconduct. 

206. As a result of Reed’s illegal actions, John’s ability and plans to pursue 

undergraduate and graduate degrees have been severely compromised. 

207. As a result of Reed’s illegal actions, John was deprived of the value of the 

substantial financial resources invested in his Reed education. Reed also wrongfully deprived 

John of his ability to complete his degree requirements. 

208. Without appropriate redress, the unfair and illegal outcome of the SMB hearing 

and its appeal will continue to cause irreparable damage to John. 

First Cause of Action 

Violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. 

(Against Defendant Reed) 

209. John Doe incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 208 as if set forth fully 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 39 of 58
PAGE 40 – COMPLAINT 

herein. 

210. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“Title 

IX”) provides, in relevant part, that: 

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. 

211. Upon information and belief, Reed receives federal funding through various 

means including, without limitation, student loans provided to Reed students directly by the 

federal government and through other funds furnished by the federal government. 

212. Regulations implementing Title IX require that schools “adopt and publish 

grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of student . . . complaints 

alleging any action which would be prohibited by” Title IX or its regulations. To assist schools 

with implementing those regulations, the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) of the United States 

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 covered by Title IX must not only “ensure the Title IX rights of 

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

the Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance, “due process” must include, among other things, 

“[a]dequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, including the opportunity to 

present witnesses and other evidence.” 

213. Schools also have an obligation under Title IX to ensure that all employees 

involved in sexual harassment proceedings (including proceedings involving “alleged sexual 

assaults”) have “adequate training as to what conduct constitutes sexual harassment.” 

214. Reed has deprived John, on the basis of his sex, of his Title IX rights to due 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 40 of 58
PAGE 41 – COMPLAINT 

process and equal protection through the improper administration, and/or the existence, in its 

current state, of Reed’s Guidebook and other applicable policies and procedures. 

Count 1 - Selective Enforcement 

215. Reed, in violation of Title IX, discriminated against John based on his sex and, as 

a result, John has been seriously and irreparably damaged. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, 

the severity of the penalty—expulsion—and the decision to initiate the proceeding, were affected 

by John’s gender. 

216. Reed discriminatorily investigated, charged, and disciplined only John—the 

male—in connection with a sexual encounter involving John and two females, despite the fact 

that all three engaged in materially identical behavior. 

217. Reed did not investigate, charge, or discipline AM (a female), who played a more 

active role than John in the sexual encounter, despite Jane’s allegations that AM initiated the 

sexual activity and did not secure Jane’s consent, and despite Granger’s Investigative Report that 

reached the same conclusion. 

218. Reed did not investigate, charge, or discipline Jane or AM for their sexual activity 

with each other or their sexual activity with John, despite the fact that Jane, AM, and John had 

all ingested approximately the same volume of intoxicants and shared substantially the same 

capacity to consent to that activity. 

219. Reed did not discipline Jane for the incident of dating violence—when she 

punched John in the face, causing bleeding and loose teeth. 

220. Reed did not discipline the female student who sexually assaulted John despite 

clear evidence of the assault. Moreover, Granger strongly discouraged John from bringing 

formal charges. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 41 of 58
PAGE 42 – COMPLAINT 

221. Upon information and belief, Reed has never taken action against a female 

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

222. Upon information and belief, during the tenures of President Kroger and Granger, 

males invariably lose when charged with sexual misconduct at Reed. 

223. As a direct and proximate consequence of Reed’s Title IX violation, John has 

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. 

224. This black mark on John’s record inhibits or destroys his ability to enroll in a 

similarly ranked and esteemed college or university and stigmatizes John as he now has a record 

that notes findings of guilt for serious misconduct that he did not commit. 

225. John has also suffered monetary damages, loss of educational opportunities, and 

other direct and consequential damages. 

226. As a direct and proximate consequence of Reed’s Title IX violation, John has lost 

any and all monies he paid to obtain a Reed degree (including, but not limited to, tuition, living 

expenses, books, and transportation costs) since he enrolled in approximately September 2010, 

as he was forced to leave Reed without obtaining a degree. 

227. John is entitled to recover damages for Reed’s Title IX violation, in an amount to 

be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs and 

disbursements, and appropriate equitable relief. 

Count 2 - Erroneous Outcome from a Flawed Proceeding 

228. In violation of Title IX, Reed discriminated against John based solely on his 

gender and, as a result, seriously and irreparably damaged him. It discriminated against him by 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 42 of 58
PAGE 43 – COMPLAINT 

failing to comply with its own procedures and by failing to comply with the requirements of Title 

IX, in order to reach a pre-ordained result, due to his gender and gender stereotypes. 

229. Reed created an environment in which John, an accused male student, was so 

fundamentally denied due process as to be virtually assured a finding of guilt. Such a biased and 

one-sided process deprived John, as a male student, of educational opportunities on the basis of 

sex. 

230. Reed conducted its “investigation” and subsequent SMB hearing, in which a 

majority of the hearing members were students, in a manner that was biased against the accused, 

John, based on gender. From the outset, the investigation and adjudication process was slanted 

in favor of Jane, the female accuser, because of her gender. The SMB and President Kroger 

accepted her statements at face value and granted her the presumption of truth because she is 

female. John did not have an equal opportunity to present relevant witnesses and to present 

evidence about Jane’s motives to present false accusations. John was also given less time to 

prepare, based on his gender. The SMB was improperly trained and was insufficient under Title 

IX. 

231. Reed responded to Jane’s accusations with a series of arbitrary, capricious, 

discriminatory, and gender-based actions directed toward a predetermined outcome: John’s 

expulsion from Reed. In this process, Reed failed to adhere to its stated processes and 

procedures. Among other things, Reed (1) improperly instructed John that he was forbidden 

from contacting witnesses prior to his hearing, leaving him to rely entirely on the SMB to reach 

out to those witnesses to ensure their attendance; (2) failed to ensure that critical witnesses 

attended; (3) refused to ask critical questions that related to Jane’s motive and credibility; and (4) 

considered matters on appeal in President Kroger’s final review to justify upholding the decision 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 43 of 58
PAGE 44 – COMPLAINT 

that were at odds with the SMB’s previous determination that such matters did not warrant 

expulsion, and that were considered for the first time in the final appeal. 

232. Reed also contributed to an erroneous outcome through the following: 

a. Failing to provide adequate policies and procedures for the investigation and 

adjudication of complaints of alleged sexual misconduct;

b. Violating Reed’s policy against gender/sex-based discrimination by establishing a 

de facto presumption, on the basis of gender stereotypes, that John committed 

sexual assault; 

c. Conducting a cursory, superficial, biased, and fundamentally unfair investigation, 

hearing, and appeals process;

d. Failing to notify John of the allegations against him in the prescribed timeframe;

e. Causing a superficial, conclusory, and capricious “Investigative Report” to be 

created, which impermissibly contained opinion, mischaracterized witness 

testimony, and excluded pertinent information, and which was clearly biased in 

favor of the accuser; 

f. Failing to adequately and impartially investigate the allegations against John by, 

inter alia, discounting or ignoring crucial witness testimony, including the 

testimony of AM, the third participant in the July 25, 2013 sexual encounter;

g. Failing to provide sufficient time for John and the SMB to prepare for the hearing; 

h. Failing to ensure that the SMB members were properly trained and prepared to 

adjudicate a sexual assault allegation;

i. Failing to properly apply a “reasonable person” standard or a “preponderance of 

the evidence” standard at the hearing;

j. Preventing John from contacting favorable witnesses and failing to ensure their 

attendance at the hearing;

k. Failing to allow John to present a defense of his choosing by, inter alia, cutting 

off his direct testimony, denying his request to present certain witnesses, and 

denying him the opportunity to cross-examine or confront witnesses;

l. Failing to provide John with basic due process, including the opportunity to 

confront—at least indirectly—Jane with questions to test her veracity and 

credibility and explore her motivations for bringing her complaint;

m. Considering the superficial, biased, and conclusory Investigative Report during 

the SMB hearing and on appeal;

n. Rendering an adverse decision against John without sufficient evidence to support 

such a decision; 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 44 of 58
PAGE 45 – COMPLAINT 

o. Permitting Jane 60 days to respond to the evidence John submitted on appeal 

without allowing John a remotely equivalent period to present evidence or 

arguments at any stage of the proceedings;

p. Affirming the SMB’s findings and sanctions despite Jane’s complete and utter 

failure to refute the sworn eyewitness testimony of AM and ML, which 

corroborated John’s account of the events of July 25, 2013 in every material 

respect;

q. Rendering a decision on appeal that relied on information that John was precluded 

from discussing during the SMB hearing after the SMB determined that such 

information was “not ‘relevant’”;

r. Failing to impose a proportionate and reasonable sanction; and

s. Issuing an arbitrary and capricious appellate decision.

233. But for the obvious gender bias, the outcome of the proceeding would have been 

different. As a direct result of its flawed proceeding, John was denied a fundamentally fair 

hearing and the SMB reached an erroneous outcome. 

234. As a direct and proximate consequence of Reed’s Title IX violation, John has 

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. 

235. This black mark on John’s record inhibits or destroys his ability to enroll in a 

similarly ranked and esteemed college or university and stigmatizes John as he now has a record 

that notes findings of guilt for serious misconduct that he did not commit. 

236. John has also suffered monetary damages, loss of educational opportunities, and 

other direct and consequential damages. 

237. As a direct and proximate consequence of Reed’s Title IX violation, John has lost 

any and all monies he paid to obtain a Reed degree (including, but not limited to, tuition, living 

expenses, books, and transportation costs) since he enrolled in approximately September 2010, 

as he was forced to leave Reed without obtaining a degree. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 45 of 58
PAGE 46 – COMPLAINT 

238. John is entitled to recover damages for Reed’s Title IX violation, in an amount to 

be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs and 

disbursements, and appropriate equitable relief, as directed by the Court. 

Count 3 - Deliberate Indifference 

239. Reed, in violation of Title IX, demonstrated a deliberate and systematic 

indifference to the harassment of John due to his gender. 

240. Reed and, in particular, Granger, had actual notice that John was the victim of 

sexual assault while a student at Reed. However, when John reported the allegations of sexual 

assault to Granger, Granger interrogated John like he was the assailant, rather than victim, 

because John is male. Moreover, Granger persuaded John to not pursue any formal charges 

against his female assailant. This stands in sharp contrast to Granger’s active encouragement of 

Jane to file her formal complaint against John as soon as possible. Granger also did not ensure 

the attendance of Dean Frost or a similarly situated member of the administration at the meeting, 

as he did with Jane. 

241. Reed, and in particular Granger, also had actual notice that John was the victim of 

physical assault and dating violence while a student at Reed. Jane admitted to Granger that she 

had punched John in the face, causing bleeding and knocking two teeth loose. However, despite 

her admission, Granger did not institute any disciplinary proceedings against Jane or sanction her 

in any way, nor did he encourage John to file a complaint. Instead, Granger imposed a mutual

no-contact order, requiring John to also stay away from Jane and subjecting John, the victim, to 

disciplinary sanctions should Jane, his female abuser, report (or fabricate) a future violation of 

the no-contact order. 

242. John is the victim of false allegations by his female abuser, Jane, but Reed, once 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 46 of 58
PAGE 47 – COMPLAINT 

again, has failed to take any action to protect John. 

243. President Kroger also had notice, during the appeals process, of the defective 

hearing in this case but failed to correct the misconduct. 

244. Reed’s actions—and inaction—were unreasonable in light of the known 

circumstances. Reed has been and continues to be deliberately indifferent to John’s harassment 

about which it has knowledge, because John is a male being harassed by female students. Reed’s 

indifference is underscored by its plan to confer a degree on Jane at its graduation ceremony in 

spring 2015. 

245. As a direct and proximate consequence of Reed’s Title IX violations, John has 

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. 

246. This black mark on John’s record inhibits or destroys his ability to enroll in a 

similarly ranked and esteemed college or university and stigmatizes John as he now has a record 

that notes findings of guilt for serious misconduct that he did not commit. 

247. John has also suffered monetary damages, loss of educational opportunities, and 

other direct and consequential damages. 

248. As a direct and proximate consequence of Reed’s Title IX violations, John has 

lost any and all monies he paid to obtain a Reed degree (including, but not limited to, tuition, 

living expenses, books, and transportation costs) since he enrolled in approximately September 

2010, as he was forced to leave Reed without obtaining a degree. 

249. John is entitled to recover damages for Reed’s Title IX violations, in an amount to 

be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs and 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 47 of 58
PAGE 48 – COMPLAINT 

disbursements, and appropriate equitable relief, as directed by the Court. 

Second Cause of Action 

Breach of Contract 

(Against Defendant Reed) 

250. John Doe incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 249 as if set forth fully 

herein. 

251. At all times material hereto, a contractual relationship existed between Reed and 

John. The Guidebook and the other related policies, procedures, and promises governing 

situations such as this one, the terms of which were unilaterally promulgated by Reed, comprise 

the contract. Pursuant thereto, Reed was required to act in accordance with the Guidebook and 

other applicable policies in resolving complaints of misconduct and alleged violations of the 

honor principle in the investigation of those complaints, in the process of adjudicating 

complaints of sexual misconduct, and in resolving appeals brought to challenge disciplinary 

decisions. 

252. The promises set forth in the Guidebook and other Reed policies are and were 

supported by valid consideration. 

253. John fully complied with all of his contractual obligations to Reed, including 

payment of annual tuition and compliance with enrollment procedures. 

254. Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, Reed materially breached 

its contractual obligations to John by, among other things: 

a. Discriminating against John on the basis of his gender;

b. Failing to provide adequate policies and procedures for the investigation and 

adjudication of complaints of alleged sexual misconduct;

c. Violating Reed’s policy against gender/sex-based discrimination by establishing a 

de facto presumption, on the basis of gender stereotypes, that John committed 

sexual assault; 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 48 of 58
PAGE 49 – COMPLAINT 

d. Conducting a cursory, superficial, biased, and fundamentally unfair investigation, 

hearing and appeals process;

e. Failing to notify John of the allegations against him in the prescribed timeframe;

f. Causing a superficial, conclusory, and capricious “Investigative Report” to be 

created, which impermissibly contains opinion, mischaracterizes witness 

testimony, and excludes pertinent information, and which was clearly biased in 

favor of the accuser; 

g. Failing to adequately and impartially investigate the allegations against John by, 

inter alia, discounting or ignoring crucial witness testimony, including the 

testimony of AM, the third participant in the July 25, 2013 sexual encounter;

h. Failing to provide sufficient time for John and the SMB to prepare for the hearing; 

i. Failing to ensure that the SMB members were properly trained and prepared to 

adjudicate a sexual assault allegation;

j. Failing properly to apply a “reasonable person” standard or a “preponderance of 

the evidence” standard at the hearing;

k. Preventing John from contacting favorable witnesses and failing to ensure their 

attendance at the hearing;

l. Failing to allow John to present a defense of his choosing by, inter alia, cutting 

off his direct testimony, denying his request to present certain witnesses, and 

denying him the opportunity to cross-examine or confront witnesses;

m. Failing to provide John with basic due process, including the opportunity to 

confront and question Jane to test her veracity and credibility and explore her 

motivations for bringing her complaint;

n. Considering the superficial, biased, and conclusory Investigative Report during 

the SMB hearing and on appeal;

o. Rendering an adverse decision against John without sufficient evidence to support 

such a decision; 

p. Permitting Jane 60 days to respond to the evidence John submitted on appeal;

q. Affirming the SMB’s findings and sanctions despite Jane’s complete and utter 

failure to refute the sworn eyewitness testimony of AM and ML, which 

corroborated John’s account of the events of July 25, 2013 in every material 

respect;

r. Rendering a decision on appeal that relied on information that John was precluded 

from discussing during the SMB hearing after the SMB determined that such 

information was “irrelevant”;

s. Failing to impose a proportionate and reasonable sanction; 

t. Issuing an arbitrary and capricious appellate decision; and

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 49 of 58
PAGE 50 – COMPLAINT 

u. Failing to protect John from physical harm from Jane.

255. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of these breaches, John 

sustained significant damages, including, without limitation, loss of educational opportunities, 

economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. 

Third Cause of Action 

Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 

(Against Defendant Reed) 

256. John Doe incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 255 as if set forth fully 

herein. 

257. The contract between Reed and John imposed upon Reed a duty of good faith and 

fair dealing including, inter alia, a duty to conduct a diligent, unbiased, and meaningful 

investigation, adjudication, and appellate review according to Reed’s Guidebook and other 

policies. 

258. Reed breached and violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in 

its agreement with John by failing to conduct a diligent, unbiased, and meaningful investigation, 

adjudication and appellate review. 

259. Reed also breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by, among 

other things, engaging in the conduct described in paragraph 253, above. 

260. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of these breaches, John 

sustained significant damages, including, without limitation, loss of educational opportunities, 

economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. John is entitled to damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, and appropriate equitable relief, as 

directed by the Court. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 50 of 58
PAGE 51 – COMPLAINT 

Fourth Cause of Action 

Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices 

(Against Defendant Reed) 

261. John Doe incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 260 as if set forth fully 

herein. 

262. The Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.605, et seq. (“UTPA”) 

prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. 

263. Deceptive advertising and marketing, including the misrepresentation of facts and 

the omission of material facts, violates the UTPA’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts and 

practices in commerce. Under the UTPA, a representation is a manifestation of an assertion by 

words or conduct, including a failure to disclose a fact. Actionable representations under the 

UTPA can be express or implied. 

264. Reed willfully engaged in the following unconscionable and deceptive acts and 

practices, aimed at the consumer public at large, which included representations and/or 

omissions that were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the 

circumstances: 

a. Causing John to believe that Reed would adhere to and follow the policies and 

procedures set forth in its Guidebook and elsewhere when conducting its 

investigation, adjudication, and appeal relating to Jane’s allegations; and

b. Causing John to believe that, if he and his family paid the required tuition and fees, 

Reed would honor the promises, obligations, covenants, and warranties it made to 

John in the Guidebook and elsewhere.

265. Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, Reed engaged in unfair and 

deceptive trade practices in violation of ORS 646.607 and ORS 646.608. 

266. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of Reed’s deceptive acts and 

practices, John suffered an ascertainable loss of money and property including, without 

limitation, loss of educational opportunities, economic injuries, and other direct and 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 51 of 58
PAGE 52 – COMPLAINT 

consequential damages. John is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus 

prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, punitive damages, and appropriate equitable 

relief, as directed by the Court. 

Fifth Cause of Action 

Declaratory Judgment 

(Against Defendant Reed) 

267. John incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 266 as if set forth fully 

herein. 

268. Reed committed numerous violations of its contract with John and of federal and 

state law. 

269. John’s education and future career have been severely damaged. Without 

appropriate redress, the unfair outcome of the SMB hearing and its appeal will continue to cause 

irreparable harm to John. 

270. As a result of the foregoing, there exists a justiciable controversy between the 

parties with respect to the outcome, permanency, and future handling of John’s formal student 

record at Reed. 

271. By reason of the foregoing, John requests, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, a 

declaration that: (i) the outcome and findings made by Reed at the SMB hearing be reversed; (ii) 

John’s disciplinary record be expunged; (iii) the record of John’s expulsion from Reed be 

removed; (iv) any record of John’s SMB hearing be permanently destroyed; and (v) Reed’s rules, 

regulations, and guidelines are unlawful as applied. 

Sixth Cause of Action 

Defamation 

(Against All Defendants) 

272. John incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 271 as if fully set forth fully 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 52 of 58
PAGE 53 – COMPLAINT 

herein. 

273. Reed and Jane each made communications about John that were defamatory in 

nature. 

274. Specifically, each published to third parties—orally and in writing—that John was 

the perpetrator of a sexual assault, even though they knew the allegation was false, or acted with 

reckless indifference to the truth or falsity of said allegation. 

275. The defamatory communications tended to harm and did harm John’s reputation 

so as to lower him in the estimation of the community and to deter third persons from associating 

with him. 

276. The defamatory communications were intended to, and did, convey to third 

persons John’s guilt of a serious sexual criminal offense involving moral turpitude. 

277. Reed and Jane intended not only to deprive John of his good name and to bring 

him into scandal and disrepute amongst his neighbors and peers, but also to limit John’s future 

educational and employment prospects. 

278. The defamatory communications tended to, and did, blacken John’s reputation 

and expose him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule. 

279. The allegations against John were directly and clearly disputed by independent 

third parties, and were otherwise so inherently improbable that only a reckless and dishonest 

person would have conveyed them. 

280. The defamatory communications were not statements of mere opinion. 

281. The defamatory communications were published in that they were made to 

numerous third parties. The defamatory communications included, but were not limited to: 

Jane’s statements to Gary Granger and Dean Frost on or about March 11, 2014, and her 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 53 of 58
PAGE 54 – COMPLAINT 

statements to the SMB on or about April 4, 2014; Jane’s similar statements to numerous of 

John’s fellow Reed students, peers, and professors throughout 2014; and the SMB’s publication 

of its “Finding of Fact,” “Sanctions,” and “Justification of Sanctions” to Jane and Reed’s Dean 

of Students, Mike Brody, in or about May 2014. 

282. The defamatory communications were malicious, reckless, and intentionally or 

negligently made. 

283. The defamatory communications were not justifiably protected by any privilege; 

or, in the alternative, if they were protected by a privilege, it was abused. 

284. The defamatory communications referenced John by name to ensure that those 

who received the communications knew that they referred and applied to John, and the recipients 

of the defamatory communications understood that they applied to John. 

285. All persons receiving the communications understood the defamatory meaning of 

the communications. All persons receiving the communications believed John had committed a 

serious criminal offense involving sexual misconduct—sexual assault—against Jane. 

286. John was specially harmed by the publication of the defamatory communications. 

287. As a result of the publication of the defamatory communications, John suffered 

actual loss to his reputation and personal humiliation and anguish. 

288. As a direct and proximate result of the defamatory communications, John 

sustained substantial damages, including, but not limited to, loss of educational opportunities, 

economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. John is entitled to damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest. 

289. Defendants’ conduct was wanton, reckless, willful, malicious, and oppressive, and 

demonstrated reckless indifference to John’s rights and interests so as to warrant an award of 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 54 of 58
PAGE 55 – COMPLAINT 

punitive damages. 

Seventh Cause of Action 

Abuse of Process 

(Against Defendant Jane Roe) 

290. John incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 208 as if fully set forth fully 

herein. 

291. Jane, acting willfully, without probable cause and with malice, filed a false report 

with Reed, claiming, among other falsehoods, that John had sexually assaulted her. 

292. Jane perverted the SMB process to accomplish the ulterior purpose of retaliating 

against John for ending his relationship with Jane and for dating Jane’s friend. 

293. As a result of the defamatory, false, and embarrassing allegations contained in 

Jane’s report, John sustained substantial damages, including, but not limited to, loss of education 

opportunities, economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. 

294. As a result of the foregoing, John is entitled to damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest. 

295. Jane’s conduct was wanton, reckless, willful, malicious, and oppressive, and 

demonstrated reckless indifference to John’s rights and interests so as to warrant an award of 

punitive damages. 

Eighth Cause of Action 

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 

(Against Defendant Jane Roe) 

296. John incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 208 and 290 through 295 as 

if fully set forth fully herein. 

297. John has the right to pursue his contractual relationships free from interference on 

the part of other persons. 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 55 of 58
PAGE 56 – COMPLAINT 

298. Jane had knowledge of John’s contractual relationship with Reed. 

299. At all times material hereto, Jane did willfully, maliciously, and improperly 

interfere with an existing contract between John and Reed by repeatedly meeting with Reed 

agents, servants, and/or employees, and defaming John and leveling false accusations against 

him that resulted in his expulsion and exclusion from Reed. 

300. Jane’s accusations against John to Reed were defamatory, brought in bad faith, 

and intended to retaliate against John for dating her friend or ending their relationship, rather 

than to vindicate legitimate or honest concerns. 

301. Jane had no privilege, justification, or legitimate interest for interfering with the 

contract between John and Reed. 

302. Jane, who, in the pursuit of her improper objective, intentionally and improperly 

interfered with the performance of this contract, is subject to liability. 

303. In intentionally accusing John of sexual assault and dating violence, Jane was 

giving false and defamatory information to Reed which Jane knew to be false. As a direct and 

proximate result of Jane’s intentional interference of contract, John suffered expulsion and 

exclusion from Reed, and financial harm stemming therefrom. 

304. Jane’s conduct was wanton, reckless, willful, malicious and oppressive, and 

demonstrated reckless indifference to the rights and interests of John so as to warrant an award of 

punitive damages. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Doe, demands that judgment be entered in his favor and 

against Defendants, for the following relief: 

(a) Order Reed to correct John Doe’s academic and disciplinary record to remove any 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 56 of 58
PAGE 57 – COMPLAINT 

findings issued by Reed with respect to the charges leveled against him by Reed and/or 

Jane; 

(b) Order Reed to verify this correction by providing John with a notarized letter confirming 

that any findings with respect to these charges have been expunged from John’s academic 

and disciplinary record; 

(c) Order Reed immediately to allow John to reenroll at Reed to complete his degree 

requirements; 

(d) Issue a declaration that: 

(i) the outcome and findings made by Reed College at the Sexual 

Misconduct Board hearing be reversed; 

(ii) John Doe’s disciplinary record be expunged; 

(iii) the record of John Doe’s expulsion from Reed College be removed; 

(iv) any record of John Doe’s Sexual Misconduct Board hearing be 

permanently destroyed; and 

(v) Reed College’s rules, regulations, and guidelines are unlawful as 

applied. 

(e) Award John Doe compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, in addition to 

prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs; and 

(f) Such other relief that the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. 

 DATED this 14th day of April, 2015. ANGELI UNGAR LAW GROUP LLC 

 By: s/ David Angeli 

 David H. Angeli, OSB #020244 

 Kristen L. Tranetzki, OSB #115730 

 Telephone: (503) 954-2232 

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 57 of 58
PAGE 58 – COMPLAINT 

 

BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & 

SULLIVAN LLP 

 Courtney W. Angeli, OSB #941765 

 Robin Bowerfind, OSB #035949 

 Telephone: (503) 974-5015 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff John Doe

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 58 of 58