A former Chi Phi fraternity member has filed a lawsuit against Cornell University in Tompkins County court, seeking to vacate a panel finding that held him responsible for Attempted Sexual Exploitation and to expunge his academic record.
The student, identified in court documents as John Doe, claims Cornell violated its internal rules by disciplining him for an offense with which he was never formally charged, preventing him from building an adequate defense.
The legal action stems from an October 20, 2024, incident at the fraternity house, where Doe was originally accused under Title IX Policy 6.4 with Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation.
The allegations stated that he viewed a female student naked and engaged in drug use on her body.
Doe submitted negative drug test results and denied any physical contact or illicit drug use, leading the university hearing panel to clear him of both initial charges.
However, the panel found him responsible for Attempted Sexual Exploitation after evaluating his entry into a room following a Snapchat message.
According to the lawsuit, the panel relied on specific procedural rules and the student's own statements when determining his responsibility for attempting the infraction.
The panel considered Procedures Section 3.2, which prohibits attempting to commit prohibited conduct, and found that Doe attempted to commit sexual exploitation when he went into the alumni room in the early morning hours of October 20, 2024.
By Doe's own account, he went to the room, at least in part, because of a Snapchat message indicating there was "free pussy in alumni."
He also stated that he thought "something [. .
.
] bad" could be happening in the room, that someone could be "in danger," and that the situation could involve "a lot of girls."
He noted that, while he did not have specific knowledge of what was occurring in the room, he thought at the time, "If someone's having sex with someone in the room, they're not gonna send that text out."
Taking these statements together, the panel considered it more likely than not that Doe understood that the 1:42 a.
m. message indicated some kind of sexual situation involving a female.
The panel likewise found the objectively reasonable understanding of the message to indicate some kind of sexual situation was occurring with a female in the alumni room.
In addition, although Doe repeatedly indicated that he thought the message was a "joke" or not real, the panel found such statements unreasonably incompatible with his account that he was sufficiently "worried" about what was happening in the room that he went to check on the situation.
The panel noted that it was not a social room that he frequented and that he was not close to its residents, and therefore did not credit his account in this regard.
The panel further considered Doe's not a bit message and his statements acknowledging that, by the time he arrived at the alumni room, he had received confirmation that there was "a girl" present in that space and still chose to enter it.
The panel therefore determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Doe understood that a female was likely nude and/or engaged in sexual activity in the alumni room on October 20, 2024, and entered the room on that basis, intending to observe the same.
The lawsuit details that the hearing panel imposed sanctions requiring Doe to abide by a one-way No Contact Order, complete a class covering social media, sexual harassment, and bystander intervention, and write a reflection paper on the circumstances.
In the court filing, Doe alleges that a panel member was driving a car while connected to the Zoom hearing during his appeal, and argues that switching the underlying charge during proceedings infringed on his right to defend himself.
