Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 43 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 4
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

the removal of disciplinary findings against him 

would be in violation of the federal and state 

Constitutions in that it would compel persons to 

make statements when they have a protected 

constitutional right not to make such statements. 

c. Doe’s demand that a person at Reed provide a 

“notarized letter” confirming charges have been 

expunged would require such a person to swear 

falsely or to imply, falsely, that Doe was not 

disciplined or did not merit discipline, and would 

result in compelled speech, which would be in 

violation of the federal and state Constitutions. Such 

a representation would also present a clear danger 

to other institutions who might rely on such 

statements and admit Plaintiff as a student, which 

would allow him to continue his dangerous conduct 

and place others in harm's way. 

d. Doe’s demand that Reed be required to re-enroll 

Doe after his withdrawal and expulsion would 

represent an unconstitutional intrusion upon the 

freedom of association of the members of Reed's 

academic community. (Answer ¶ 100.)

#21: Adequate Remedy at Law

To the extent that Plaintiff has an adequate remedy 

at law, his complaint for injunctive relief is barred. 

(Answer ¶ 106.)

GRANT

#15: Impermissible Requests for Relief 

Doe’s demand that Reed be required to re-enroll 

Doe would be futile in that he would immediately be 

subject to investigation and charges for further 

misconduct discovered after his expulsion. (Answer 

¶ 100.)

DENY

#16: No Private Right of Action for Administrative 

Requirements

No private right of action for any alleged violation 

of Dept. of Education administrative requirements. 

(Answer ¶ 101.)

DENY

#25: Disparate Impact 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to recover on the basis 

of a disparate impact, as is alleged in the complaint, 

such claim fails as a matter of law in that Title IX 

does not permit a challenge based on a disparate 

impact. (Answer ¶ 110.)

DENY

#14: After-Acquired Evidence

Subsequent to Doe’s expulsion Reed learned of 

additional conduct which reasonably justified 

DENY

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 43 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 4
3 – OPINION AND ORDER

expulsion and which precludes the relief sought by 

Doe. In particular, that conduct learned after Doe's 

expulsion would result in his being denied 

permission to re-enter Reed or, if he should, would 

result in immediate conduct charges against him. 

Moreover, the nature of Doe's collected misconduct 

stands as a bar to Reed making a report to others 

that Doe does not present a risk of harm. Roe is not 

the only woman who has reported Doe's use of 

illegal drugs and alcohol to intoxicate or 

incapacitate women in order to facilitate his sexual 

encounters with them. (Answer ¶ 99.) 

#23: Failure to Mitigate

If damaged, Plaintiff failed to make reasonable 

efforts to mitigate any damages. (Answer ¶108.) 

DENY

#1: Rights of Private College DENY

#2: Compliance with Law DENY

Defense #3: Fair and Equitable Proceedings DENY

#8: Failure to State a Claim for Relief DENY

#10: Defamation Claim Insufficient as a Matter of 

Law

DENY

#18: Reasonable Expectations DENY

#19: Health and Safety DENY

#22: Consequences of Own Conduct

If Plaintiff was damaged, it was a result of his own 

conduct as alleged above and as discovered after his 

expulsion. (Answer ¶ 107.) 

DENY

#26: Trade Practices Theory Insufficient as a Matter 

of Law

DENY

//

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 43 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 43 Filed 08/17/15 Page 4 of 4