email mdugan(4]mdugan.com 

website www.mdugan.com 

MARIANNE DUGAN 

Accorncy at Law 

259 F.. 5th Ave., Ste 200-D 

Eugene OR 97401-2677 

Telephone 541·338·7072 

Facsimile 866-650-5213 

k'g l/o 

NOTICE: This and any transmiued documents are intended only for the use of the 

individual or entity to whom this is addressed and may contain information that is 

pri vii eged, confl . den ti al, or work product and exemptfrom disclosure under applicable 

law. �f you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof, any use, dissemination, 

distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, and you are 

hereby requested to telephone the sender imniediately of the error and to return by 

mail to the sender the transmitted documents. Thank you. 

If there is a problem with transmission or if all pages are not received, please call 541-338-7072 

for reu·ansmission. 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

DATE: October 7, 2014 

Director, Oregon Dept of Ad min. Services 

State Services Division 

Risk Management 

To fax no. 1-503-373-7337 

Douglas YS Park 

University of Oregon 

To fax no. 541-346-6110 

Marianne Dugan 

Austin v. University of Oregon 

Number of pages including this cover page: 5 

Comments: 

UO GENERAL COUNSEL 

Exhibit F - Page 1 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10/07/14 ll:48AM PDT '8666505213' -> �413466110 

email mdupn@mducom 

wobsito ww.mdupn.com 

MARIAN 

At 

DUOAN 

at Law 

259 E. Sth Ave.. 

EuseneOR 97401·2677 

510 200.D Tetephono '41-338-7072 

-----·--

Faesi11ile 8650-5213 

--

October 7, 2014 

Director, Oregon Dept of Admin. Services 

State Services Division 

Ris.k Management 

Bxecutive Building 

l SS Cot St NE, U20 

Salem, OR 97301 

and via fax to l·SOJ-373-7337 

and via email to risk.managoment@state.or.us 

Douglas YS Park. Assistant General Counsel 

University of Oregon 

219 Johnson Hall 

1 226 University of Oregon 

Eugene, OR 97403 

and via tax to 541-346-611 o 

and via email to dougpark@uoregon.edu 

RE: Notice of Claim of Brandon Austin 

Dear ODAS and Mr. Park: 

Pg 2/5 

I have been reviewing potential civil claims on behalf of Brandon Austin. In compliance with 

ORS 30.275, formal notice is he�eby given that claims for damages on his behalf will be made 

against University of Oregon and its departments, officers, employ� and/or agents. resulting 

ftom the University's April 10, 2014, "emergency" suspension of Mr. Austin� April 30, 2014, 

second "emergenc:Y' suspension upon reading the police reports; and June 17, 2014, final 

University hearing and issuance of suspension for up to ten years. 

The state law claims against the University and its dcputments. officers. employees. and/or 

agents. arise out of negligence. negligent hiring. negligent supervision. breach of contnct, 

defamation, intentional infliction or emotional distres

, racial discrimination, and vicarious 

liability for those wrongs. 

The federal law cl.aims against University and its departments, officers, emploYe and/or 

agents, arise out of the violation of my client's civil rights under42 U.S.C. 1981and 1983, the 

Seryjces 

First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitutio� and Monell v. Dept. of Social 

and Adjclces . Kress, due to dep�vation of due proces

 deprivation of the right to 

freom of asiation. deprivation of the right to freom of spech, deprivation of the right to 

refuse to testify against oneself, racial discrimination. deliberate indifference to my clients' 

rights; and policties, ctustoms, or prac1i"s UW allowed such violaiions 10 ocur. 

Exhibit F - Page 2 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10/07/14 11:48AM PDT '8666505213' -> 5413466110 

Doug Parle and ODAS 

October 7, 2014 

Page2 

Pg 3/5 

So fu DS is known to the ohlimant, the time. place, and circumstances giving rise to the claim are 

as rouows. 

On March 9 2014 Brandon Austin was at a basketbal player party with his friends and 

teamrnates-�•nd •aJtiFmt

 approached Brandon Austin 

anct•»mZ Z· \;twerked" for them. and followed them into a bathro

m where: they had 

sexua& contact. 1 ney aen me DIUm ano teJOtnea me pany. :sn� rerumeo a secona ume to me 

bathroom with all thre of the mon and more sexual contact ensued. 

They left the bathro and shortl� after that the party broke up. outside on the streot thore was 

mingling of guests as folks figured out who was riding home with whom. Redacted 

wanrea to 1eave Wl:lh me ooys. tter tnencis told her not m go with them, sraung ')'OU know now 

you get" and "they only want to use you for sex.11 She insisted on going with them. At their 

apartment 

teared 

she changed into some, of their clothes and th� had group sex. At one point., she 

up and the boys immediately quit comforted her, she fell asleep in his lap 

on the couch and then spent the n.ight in his bed with him. She had sex with him the next 

monuna. wcm nomc ana t� h1m "ihlnks tor gcmng me home" (he tu1c1 eatteo Iler a c:at>J. 

l;:Jfil6

She reported her conduct to her roommate. who was aghast at the story. Al &bat point. Redacted 

reaJized her conduct wasn't univenally admired., 

Sudy her story changed to rape - she stated was drag

 into the bathro

m twice and 

assaulted, she was wrestled into the car and forced to drink alcohol� taken to the playel's home 

and repeatedly raped. Later. she reluctantly admitted to police that she bad slept over and had 

sex the next morning. 

l'ollce 1nvestaJi!ied. ·1be prosecutor (Yatty tlertow) dechnedii

sc. due to 1ncons1stenc1es 

in I :mf@1f;li ory. Police reports reveal inter.views with • · • · · • own friends and 

witnesses at the party stating that she went with the boys vo un y er expres any 

concern or emotional upset at the, pany. She was sen daneing susst!ti�ly with them by her 

romate. She was not drinking and did not appear drunk 

The University bepn investigating, but immediately made public statements against the boys. 

and issued emergency suspensions on April 10. The University then reinstated the boys� but 

then did a second emergency suspension April 30 after reading the police report. 

The University eventually reinstated 

Austin. 

Redacted and Redacted • 

The University denied Mr. Austin's requests (through his lawyer) for: 

a. contested case hearing 

b. is

 ot' subpoenas 

ut not Brandon 

Exhibit F - Page 3 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10/07/14 11:4.SAM PDT '8666505213' -> 5413466110 

Doug Park and ODAS 

October 7. 2014 

Page3 

c. names and contact info of witnesses the UO interviewed and relied upon 

d. copies ofthe Title 1X investigato�

 report - (his attomoys were told they could 

view the document blacked out but could not have a copy nor review an unPg 4/5 

tedaeted copy). 

I I 

I J 

June 17, 2014. the University had the final hearing and issued a suspension of Mr. Austin t0r up 

to ten years. 

Legal bsues 

l. Denial or due proces

 id uo admiaistntive hearing 

a. Panel hearing option (which Mr. Autin requested): 

i. UO refused to issue subpoenas, and indicates that it never allows 

subpoenas tar these bearings 

ii. UO refused to allow depositions 

iii. UO ref\ased to reveal names/contact information of its witnes

 

iv. The Title IX report was blacked out and Mr. Austin's attorneys were not 

allowed to take it from the room with them 

v. Mr. Austin was nxtuiR<I to conduct his own cross-examination. His 

atrney was not allowed to ask questions, and the questions had to be pre. 

approved by the Univorsity 

b. Administrative hearing option 

i. No subpoenas 

ii. No nameslcontac:t ot' witnes

 

iii. Title IX report blacked out in places and not given a copy. 

Exhibit F - Page 4 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10/07/14 11:48AM PDT '8666505213' -> 5413466110 

Doug Park and ODAS 

October 7, 2014 

Page4 

c. Denial of request for Contested Case hearing 

The options provided by the University do not comport with the OAPA 

2. Denial of the presumption or innotatee 

Pg 5/5 

a. The University president gave a spe

h to the media condemning the conduct of 

the thre

 players, despite the fact the investigation was still underway,, and no 

charJes had be filed (nor were they ever filed). 

b. The University (via Profes

 Freyd) led �hes demanding the expulsion of the 

students prior to adjudication. 

3. Punishment for eserdsing cwil rights 

When the University read the pol.ice reports and saw that Mr. Austin had asd bis Miranda 

rights through his counsel, they immediately placed him on emergency suspension for that 

reason. Sources indicate that this is the routine practice of the University. 

The other two, who had not as their Miranda rights, were al lowed to remain at the 

University. Mr. Austin's criminal attomey was told by Sandy Weintraub that Mr. Austin was 

treated differently 1'because he refused to talk.1

1 

4. Milconduct by the Title IX Investigator 

The Title IX inves1iptor issued findin t' tact upholding the allegations. which completely 

ignored the eyewitness (l;mwarn 'ends and the cab driver) who contradicted the 

complainant 

Brandon Austin has ben damaged by these actions. Correspondence concerning this claim may 

be sent to me. 

cc: client; U.ura fine Moro 

Exhibit F - Page 5 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Gregory E. Vcralrud 

Lindsay H. Fowler 

VERALRUD & FOWLER 

ATTORNEYS 

975 Oak Street, Suite 625 

Eugene, Oregon 97401-3156 

Telephone (541) 345-3333 

Fax (541) 342-1908 

October 8, 2014 

Director, Oregon Dept. of Admin. Services 

State Services Division 

Risk Management 

Executive Building 

155 Cottage St N.E., U20 

Salem, OR 97301 

and via fax to 503-373-7337 

and via e-mail to risk.management@state.or.us 

Douglas YS Park, Asst. General Counsel 

University of Oregon 

219 Johnson Hall 

1226 University of Oregon 

Eugene, OR 97 403 

and via fax to 541-346-6110 

and via e-mail to dougpark@uoregon.edu 

Re: Notice of Claims by Dominic Artis vs. University of Oregon and 

Various Administrative Officials 

Dear ODAS and Mr. Park: 

William F. Frye 

( 1929- 1988) 

In compliance with ORS 30.275, notice is hereby given of claims for damages on behalf 

of Dominic Artis against the University of Oregon and its departments, officers, employees and/or agents resulting in a course of conduct on the part of the aforementioned 

parties beginning April 10, 2014, with the University's "emergency suspension" and ending on or about June 17, 2014, at which time the University issued a suspension following University Student Conduct Code hearing. 

State law claims against the University and its departments, officers, employees and/or 

agents arise out of breach of contract, slander, defamation and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress on the part of the aforementioned and/or the University's vicarious 

liability for those wrongful actions. 

Federal law claims against the University and its departments, officers, employees 

and/or agents arise out of a violation of Mr. Artis' civil rights under 42 USC §1981 and 

Exhibit F - Page 6 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
October 8, 2014 

Page 2 

§1983, the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including 

deprivation of due process, deprivation of the right to freedom of association, deliberate 

indifference to Mr Artis' civil and constitutional rights and all policies, customs and practices that allowed such violations to occur. 

Insofar as the claimant is aware, the time, place and circumstances giving rise to the 

claims are as follows: 

On or about March 9, 2014, Mr. Artis attended a party with other friends and fellow 

Oregon Duck basketball teammates . At the party Mr. Artis engaged in consensual sexual activities with · RED ·\CTED as did other attendees at the party. Further sexual 

contact between Mr. Artis and Rt:o..i.crrn occurred later in the evening and in the 

early morning hours of the following day at Mr. Artis' apartment. Those acts were consensual as well. 

In the days following, RED.\CTED characterized what had been patently consensual sexual contact as sexual assault and caused her complaint to be submitted to law 

enforcement and eventually to the University of Oregon, including the above-referenced 

officials. 

A su bsequent pol ice investigation led to a conclusion by the Lane County District Attorney's office that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case. 

The police investigation generated police reports that underscored the consensual nature of the activities. Those reports were made known to the University and its abovereferenced employees and agents. 

University officials, including the then University of Oregon President, made public 

statements both implicitly and explicitly declaiming Mr. Artis as a sexual assaulter, a 

rapist and a criminal, thus slandering and defaming Mr. Artis 

During the course of the investigation, although the emergency suspension of the University was lifted with respect to Mr. Artis pending a University Student Conduct Code 

hearing, he was (1) first suspended from the basketball team, then (2) dismissed from 

the basketball team, and then (3) notified that his scholarship was terminated . These 

actions on the part of the University and the above-referenced officials were without 

cause and in violation of Mr. Artis' civil and contractual rights. 

The University then asserted violation of the University Student Conduct Code. claiming 

non-consensual sexual contact as a violation of that code. 

In the run-up to the University Student Conduct Code hearing, the University denied Mr. 

Artis' requests for: 

Exhibit F - Page 7 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
October 8, 2014 

Page 3 

a. A contested case hearing in accordance with the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act because Mr. Artis contended that the procedures set forth in the Student 

Conduct Code were deficient and denied him due process of law. 

b. The issuance of subpoenas for witnesses who would provide evidence and 

testimony supporting Mr. Artis' contention that he had committed no violation of Jaw or 

Student Conduct Code and that REDACTED 's credibility was at issue. 

c. Names and contact information of witnesses who the University of Oregon interviewed and relied upon in bringing the Student Conduct Code violation claim against 

Mr. Artis. 

d. Copies of the University's Title IX investigator's report (Mr. Artis' counsel was 

allowed to view but not have the document, with significant parts blacked out and unavailable to Mr. Artis or his counsel) 

Student Condct Code Hearing 

The University Student Conduct Code hearings process at the time offered Mr. Artis a 

choice of hearing by a panel (the panel consisting of University of Oregon personnel, 

student representatives and administrators chosen by the University) or an administrative hearing in front of the Dean of Student Conduct who would be the sole decider. 

The University coerced Mr. Artis into waiving his panel hearing by threatening expulsion 

as a remedy if he sought the panel hearing and promising to remove expulsion as an 

option if he had his case decided by the Dean of Student Conduct, a hearing which did 

not allow for cross-examination of witnesses or determination by an arguably less partial 

fact finder. 

The administrative process that the University set up for Student Conduct Code violation hearings was constitutionally deficient and denied Mr. Artis due process The University ignored its own rules with respect to its ability to issue subpoenas (Mr. Artis had 

no power to issue said subpoenas as the Student Conduct Code then read). and the 

University intentionally or recklessly frustrated Mr. Artis' ability to present evidence and 

to defend against the fallacious allegations. 

On June 17, 2014, the University conducted the final administrative hearing with all the 

deficiencies, violations and deprivations of rights set forth above and issued a suspension to Mr. Artis for up to ten years, effectively and for al l intents and purposes expelling 

him from the University anyway 

The Dean of Student Conduct, aided by University counsel, were either explicitly or implicitly directed by superiors within the University to make a finding that Mr. Artis had 

Exhibit F - Page 8 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
October 8, 2014 

Page 4 

violated the Student Conduct Code or, in the alternative, were so influenced by the 

statements and comments of their superiors, including the President of the University, 

that a fair and impartial decision-making process could never have occurred and did 

not. 

Substantial and compelling evidence of the consensual nature of Mr. Artis' sexual contact with REDACTED was willfully ignored. 

A similar contention that evidence was ignored in the arrival of the finding of culpability 

on Mr. Artis' part was also evident in the Title IX investigative report issuing findings of 

fact upholding the allegation which completely ignored substantial contradictory evidence that supported the consensual nature of Mr. Artis' sexual contact with Ms "'·~~"' 

and contained ample evidence question ing her credibility and contradicting her subsequent assertions that the encounter had not been consensual. 

Mr. Artis has been severely damaged by the University's conduct as referenced above. 

Prior to his suspension from the University of Oregon basketball team and subsequent 

removal and withdrawal of scholarship, Mr Artis had been, in all respects, compliant 

with his agreement with the University regarding his efforts as a basketball player to 

support the scholarship He was subjected to ridicule and hostility as a result of the 

University's slanderous and defamatory remarks as referenced above. His educational 

plans and ability to continue his career as a collegiate basketball player have been all 

but terminated. He has suffered financial loss, as well as great humiliation, embarrassment and vilification in the public eye. The damage to his reputation as a result of the 

University's outrageous actions is immeasurable . 

Correspondence concerning this claim may be sent care of this office. 

GV:tlk 

Sincerely, 

I sl Greg Veralrud 

Greg Veralrud 

Attorney for Dominic Artis 

975 Oak, Suite 625 

Eugene, OR 97401 

541-345-3333 

Fax 541 -342-1908 

E-mail: veralrud@oregonattorney.com 

Exhibit F - Page 9 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
1 0 -0 9 -' 1 4 1 B: 5 7 f R 0 ~\ - Sh au n S ll c Cr ea 5414B56B~7 T-970 ?0001/0006 F-516 

Robert). McCre.1 

Shaun S. McCrea 

l\!IcCREA, P.C. 

Attorneys at Law 

1147 }Ugh Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

TELEPHONE 

(541)485-1182 

FAX 

(541) ·185-6847 

FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 

DATE: October 9, 2014 NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 

(Including Transmittal page) 

-; ~ 

, ·I )\/ 

-- "i 11. J) 

1226 University of Oregon 

Eugene, OR 97403 

and via fax to 541-346-6110 

and via e-mail to dougpark@uoregon .edu 

Attention: Douglas YS Park, Asst. General Counsel 

Facsimile No. (541) 346-6110 

--·-·---- ·- ·· -

PERSON TO CONTACT lN CASE OF SENDING/RECIVING PROBLEMS: 

NAME: Shavn S. McCre<l 

MESSAGE: Notice of Tort Claim by Damyean Dotson vs. University of Oregon 

and Various Administrative Officials 

Thanks 

Shaun S. McCrea 

PERSON TO CONTACT IN CASE OF RECEJVING PROBLEMS: Shi.nm or Kelsie 

CONFfDEN1'IALTfY NOTICE: Th~ dccuments accompanying this facsimile transmission contain information 

that is confidenti~l, prnpric tary, 1d legally priv~legcd. Such infonr.allon is intended only for the use of 

individual 01· entity named above. If you a!'e r.ot the intended recipienl you are hereby notified that any 

disclosure, copyi"g. or d1stnbution, or the t~k.ing o! any acllon in reliance on facsit':"j\c transmission is strictly 

probbited. If you have received this fa csimile tr~nsmission in error, please notify u:> immedi~tely by telephone 

10 arrange for return of the original documents to us. Thank you. 

i __,I 

' "! 

Exhibit F - Page 10 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10-09 -' 14 18:57 FROI!- Shaun S llcCrea 5414856847 

McCREA, P.C. 

Robert J. McCrea 

Shaun S. McCrea 

Attorneys at Law 

1147 High Street 

Eugene, OR 97401-3270 

Oclober 9, 2014 

Director, Oregon Dept. of Admin. Services 

State Services Division 

Risk Management 

Executive Building 

155 Cottage St. N.E., U20 

Salem, OR 97301 

and via fax to 503-373-7337 

and via e·mail to rlsk.management@state.or.us 

Douglas YS Park, Asst. General Counsel 

University of Oregon 

21 9 Johnson Hall 

1226 University of Oregon 

Eugene, OR 97403 

and via fax to 541·346·6110 

and via e-mail to dougpark@uoregon.edu 

T-970 P0002/0006 f-516 

TELEPHONE 

(541) 485·1182 

FAX 

(541) 485-6847 

Re: Notice of Tort Claim by Damyean Dotson vs. University of Oregon and 

Various Administrative Officials 

Dear ODAS and Mr. Park, 

In compliance with ORS 30.275, notice is hereby given of claims for damages on behalf of 

Damyean Dotson against the University of Oregon and Its departments, officers·, 

employees and/or agents resulting In a course of conduct on the part of the 

aforementioned parties beginning April 10, 2014, with the University's "emergency 

suspension" and ending on or about June 17, 2014, at which llme the University issued a 

suspension following University Student Conduct Code hearing. 

State law claims against the University and its departments, officers, employees and/or 

agents arise out of breach of contract, slander, defamation and intentional infliction of 

Notice of Tort Claim 

October 9, 2014 

Page 1 

Exhibit F - Page 11 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10-09-' 14 18:58 FRO~- Shaun S McCrea 5414856847 T-970 ?0003/0006 F-516 

emotional distress on the part of he aforementioned and/or the University's vicarious 

liability for those wrongful actions. 

Federal law claims against the University and Its departments, officers, employees and/or 

agents arise out of a violation of Mr. Dotson' clvll rights under 42 USC§ 1981 and§ 1983, 

the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including deprivation 

of due process, deprivation of the right to freedom of association, deliberate indifference to 

Mr. Dotson' civil and constitutional rights and all policies, customs and practices that 

allowed such vlolatlons to occur. 

Insofar as the claimant is aware, the time, place and circumstances giving rise to the 

claims are as follows: 

On or about March 9, 2014 Mr. Dotson attended a party with other friends and fellow 

Oregon Duck basketball teammates. At the party Mr. Dotson engaged In consensual 

sexual activities witht REDACTED , as did other attendees at the party. Further 

consensual contact between another teammate and! REDACTED !occurred later in the 

evening and In the early morning hours of the following day at that teammate's apartment. 

Those acts were consensual as welL 

In the days following ~ DA CT~~characterlzed what had been pa~ently consensual 

sexual contact as sexual assault an caused her complaint to be submitted to law 

enforcement and eventually to the University of Oregon, Including the above-referenced 

officials. 

A subsequent police investigation led to a conclusion by the Lane County District 

Attorney's office that there was Insufficient evidence to prosecute the case. 

The police Investigation generated police reports that underscored the consensual nature 

of the activities. Those reports were made know to the University and its above· · 

referenced employees and agents. 

University officials, including the then University or Oregon President, made public 

statements both lmpllcltiy and explicitly declaiming Mr. Dotson as a sexual assaulter, a 

rapist and a criminal, thus slanqering and defaming Mr. Dotson. · 

During the course of the Investigation, although the emergency suspension of the 

University was lifted with respect to Mr. Dotson pending a University Student Conduct 

Code hearing, he was (1) first suspended from the basketball team, then (2) dismissed 

from the basketball team, and then (3) notified that his scholarship was terminated. These 

actions on the part of the University and the above-referenced officials were without cause 

and in violation of Mr. Dotson's civil and contractual rights. · 

Notice of Tort Claim 

October 9, 2014 

Page 2 

Exhibit F - Page 12 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10-09-' 14 18 :58 FROM - Shaun S McCrea 5414856847 T-970 P0004/0006 F-516 

The University then asserted violation of the University Student Conduct Code, claiming 

non-consensual sexual contact as a vlolatlon of that code. 

In the run-up the University Student Conduct Code hearing, lhe University denied Mr. 

Dotson's requests for: 

a) a contested case hearing In accordance with the Oregon Administrative 

Procedures Act because Mr. Dotson contended that the procedures set fourth in the 

Student Conduct Code were deficient and denied him due process of law. ; 

b) The Issuance of subpoenas for witnesses who would prcvlde evidence and 

testimony supporting Mr. Dotson' contention that he had committed no violation of law 

or Student Conduct Code and that! REDA CTED rs credibility was at Issue. 

c) Names and contact information of witnesses who the University of Oregon 

interviewed and relied upon in bringing the Student Conduct Code violation claim 

against Mr. Dotson. 

d) Coples of the University's Title IX investigator's report (Mr. Dotson' counsel 

was allowed to view but not have the document, with significant parts blacked out and 

unavailable to Mr. Dotson or his cou·nsel). 

Student Conduct Code Hearing 

The University Student Conduct Code hearings process at the time offered Mr. Dotson 

a choice of hearing by a panel (the panel consisting of University of Oregon personnel, 

student representatives and administrators chosen by the Universl!y) or and 

administrative hearing In front of the Dean of Student Conduct who would be the sole 

decider. The University coerced Mr. Dotson to waive his pane! hearing by threatening 

expulsion as a remedy If he sought the panel hearing and promising to remove 

expulsion as an option if he had his case decided by the Dean of Student Conduct, a 

hearing which did not allow for cross-examination of witnesses or determination by an 

arguably less partial fact finder. 

The administrative process that the University set up for the Student Conduct Code 

violation hearings was constitutionally deficient and denied Mr. Dotson due process. 

The University Ignored its own rules with respect to !ts ability to Issue subpoenas (Mr. 

Dotson tiad no power to issue said subpoenas as the Student Conduct Code then 

read), and the University intentional!y or recklessly frustrated Mr. Dotson' ability to 

present evidence and to defend against the fallacious allegations. 

On June 17, 2014, the University conducted the final admlnlstratlva hearing with all the 

deficiencies, violations and deprivations of rights set forth above and issued a 

Notice of Tort Claim 

October 9, 2014 

Page3 

Exhibit F - Page 13 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10- 09 -' 14 18:59 FROU - Shaun S llcCrea 5414BS6B47 T-970 POOOS/0006 f-516 

sustentlon of Mr. Dotson for up to ten years, effectively and 1or all Intents and purposes 

expelllng him from the University anyway. 

The Dean of Student Conduct, aided by University counsel, were either explicitly or 

implicltly directed by superiors within the University to make a finding that Mr. Dotson 

had violated the Student Conduct Code or, ln the alternatlve, were so Influenced by the 

statements and comments of their superiors, includlng the President of the University, 

that a fair and Impartial decision-making process could never have occurred and ·did 

not. 

Substantial and comoellinq evidence of the consensual nature of Mr. Dotson' sexual 

contact with Rrn ... cno was willfully ignored. 

A similar contention that evidence was ignored in the arrival of the finding of culpability 

on Mr. Dotson' part was also evident In the Title XI Investigative report issuing findings 

of fact upholding the allegation which completely ignored substantial contradictory 

evidence that supported the consensual nature ol Mr. Dotson' sexual contact with Ms . 

. "· ~;~ ' ' and contained ample evidence questioning her credibility and contradicting her 

subsequent assertions that eh encounter had not been consensual. 

Mr. Dotson has been severely damaged by the University's conduct as referenced 

above. Prior to his suspension from the University of Oregon basketball team and 

subsequent removal and withdrawal of scholarship, Mr. Dotson had been, in al.1 

respects, compliant with his agreement with the University regarding his efforts as a 

basketball player to support the scholarship. He was subjected to ridicule and hostility 

as a result of the University's slanderous and defamatory remarks as referenced 

above. His educatlonal plans and ablllty to continue his career as a collegiate 

basketball player have been all but terminated. He has suffered financial loss, as well 

as great humiliation, embarrassment and vilification In the public eye. The damage to 

his reputation as a result of the University's outrageous actions is immeasurable. 

Notice of Tort Claim 

October 9, 2014 

Page 4 

Exhibit F - Page 14 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
10-09-' 14 18:59 FROM- Shaun S McCrea 5414856847 T-970 P0006/0006 f-516 

Correspondence concerning this claim may be sent care of this office. 

SMc/kg 

Notice of Tort Claim 

October 9, 2014 

Page5 

Sincerely, 

McCREA, P .C. 

/F s rf:c,,.. 

Shaun S. McCrea 

Attorney for Damyean Dotson 

1147 High Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

541 -485-1182 

Fax 541·465-6847 

E-mail: shaun@mccreapc.com 

Exhibit F - Page 15 of 15 

Declaration of Lisa Thornton in Support of 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss