Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 38 PageID: 99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : : : : : : : : JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. RIDER UNIVERSITY, Defendant. Civil Action No.___________ Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff John Doe (“John” or “John Doe”), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this Complaint and, in support thereof, alleges as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. On October 17, 2015, John was a freshman in good standing at Rider University (“Rider” or “University”). On October 18, Jane Roe (“Jane Roe”) and Jane Roe 2 (“Jane Roe 2”) falsely accused John of a sexual assault that never happened. Rather than investigating Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s allegations, the University blindly accepted them. In a rush to convict John and brand him a sexual predator, Rider immediately—and without any investigation— suspended John from the University. In the weeks and months that followed, while John was forced to sit at home, he was subjected to a Title IX disciplinary process that was unabashedly pro-complainant, refused to afford him any semblance of fundamental fairness, and considered him guilty until proven innocent. On information and belief, a high-level administrator at Rider described the University’s Title IX disciplinary process as replete with “due-process flaws.” It is. But John was not merely the victim of a flawed process. He was the victim of a University Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 38 PageID: 100 that actively ignored its own Title IX disciplinary process—a process detailed in two student handbooks—whenever necessary to disadvantage and convict him. And he was the victim of Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, Dean Anthony Campbell, who as early as October 19, refused to hear John’s account and announced, based on Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s allegations alone, “I’m going against you.” Rider made good on Dean Campbell’s promise, and did so from the start. 2. While John was suspended and forbidden from continuing his coursework, Rider did nothing. No witnesses were interviewed. No investigation was conducted. The University, through its outside counsel, claimed that the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office requested that the University put its disciplinary investigation on hold while the Prosecutor’s Office conducted its investigation. That representation was false. 3. In mid-November, the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office declined to prosecute John. While the Prosecutor’s Office did not disclose the reasons underlying its decision, presumably the decision was based on the inconsistent statements made by Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2, whose stories not only defied commonsense, but were constantly shifting. 4. But even after Mercer County refused to prosecute John, Rider and Dean Campbell continued the suspension they had imposed upon him. While John was forced to sit at home, the University conducted the most perfunctory of investigations. What little investigation the University did conduct focused on inculpatory facts only, while assiduously avoiding the exculpatory. 5. The result of the University’s investigation was a one-page letter charging John with sexual assault and warning him that if found “responsible,” he faced punishment up to expulsion. The letter included no description of the alleged facts underlying the sexual assault 2 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 38 PageID: 101 charge. There was no complaint or anything akin to a formal charging instrument. Instead, John was left to guess at the facts that could end his academic career at Rider. John repeatedly asked the University for more information on the charges against him, but the University was content to let him guess. 6. On December 4, 2015, the University and Dean Campbell assembled a hearing panel, consisting of three members, to judge the evidence against John. All three panel members were administrators who reported directly or, through others, to Dean Campbell. John raised the clear conflict of interest with the University—after all, it was Dean Campbell who had originally declared he was “going against” John, suspended him, and continued that suspension even after the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office declined prosecution—and sought the panel members’ recusals. Rider denied John’s request and allowed the hearing to proceed. 7. Prior to and then again at the disciplinary hearing, John asked for all medical reports or other medical evidence detailing Jane Roe’s purported injuries. Rider denied John’s request prior to the hearing and, at the hearing, the panel members quickly shutdown all questions concerning Jane Roe’s medical treatment. 8. But in the waning minutes of the hearing, the hearing panel allowed Jane Roe to testify about her medical treatment. She declared, without any support, that the results demonstrated she was the victim of a sexual assault. She did not state who made that finding or based on what evidence. She did not even specify the nature of the alleged sexual assault. Of course, Jane Roe’s alleged results went unrebutted because the panel members had barred all questions about Jane Roe’s medical treatment. 9. On December 8, 2015, in another one-page letter, John was found responsible by the hearing panel and expelled from the University. There was no written opinion from the panel 3 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 38 PageID: 102 explaining its decision or the punishment imposed. There were no findings of fact. There was no explanation about whom the panel judged credible and whom it judged incredible. There was nothing beyond two words: “responsible” and “expulsion.” At the beginning of this rigged process, John was left to guess at what he had been charged with. Now, he was left to guess at why he had been found responsible, and his college career ended only months after it had begun. 10. John appealed the hearing panel’s decision, but with no written opinion to appeal, he did so blindly. On January 8, 2016, in yet another one-page letter, a separate appeal panel upheld the original hearing panel’s responsibility finding and chosen punishment. 11. John’s academic career at Rider was over. But beyond that, his education record has been permanently marred because he has effectively been branded as a sexual predator, making admission to another college or university of similar caliber to Rider likely impossible. 12. John will be stigmatized for years to come by the fact that he was found responsible for sexual assault. He will have no choice but to disclose the finding whenever he is asked whether he was the subject of a college disciplinary proceeding or found responsible for a disciplinary violation, a common question in transfer applications to other colleges or for graduate or professional school, in professional licensure applications, in government employment applications, and in other employment or prospective employment circumstances. 13. Besides the irreversible damage to his college transfer, post-graduate, employment, and earning prospects, the University’s finding of responsibility for sexual assault has lasting social and reputational harm. The University’s labeling of John as a “sexual predator” will continue to have dramatic, life-altering consequences for him. 4 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 38 PageID: 103 14. Rider’s conduct has caused John severe emotional and physical distress, including panic attacks, loss of appetite, an inability to sleep through the night, nightmares, and anxiety, all requiring counseling. 15. For these reasons, John brings this action to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief and monetary damages based on causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, promissory estoppel and reliance, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, all based on a disciplinary process that can only be labeled fundamentally unfair. II. PARTIES 16. Plaintiff John Doe is a resident of Passaic County, New Jersey. During the 2015- 2016 academic year, John was enrolled as a fulltime freshman at Rider. He was scheduled to graduate in June 2019. 17. Defendant Rider University is a private university located in Mercer County, New Jersey offering undergraduate and graduate degrees to approximately 5,000 students across 67 undergraduate and 35 graduate degree programs. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. This Court has original jurisdiction over Count VII pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because John’s Title IX claim arises under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I through VI and VIII pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims are so related to John Doe’s Title IX claim that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 5 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 38 PageID: 104 19. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to John’s claims occurred in this district. Among other things, the alleged sexual assault occurred in this district, and the resulting disciplinary process unfolded here. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Alleged Sexual Assault 20. In the early morning hours of October 18, 2015, John returned to campus with three friends from an off-campus party. John was the designated driver that night, and was not intoxicated. Upon entering Poyda Residence Hall, some of the boys entered the boys’ restroom. It was there that John first encountered Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2 who were, for some reason, in the boys’ restroom. Mindful of the girls, and slightly embarrassed, John went to the point furthest from the girls to use the bathroom. 21. Two of John’s friends finished in the restroom and went to bed. When John left the restroom, he found his remaining friend, Joe Doe (“Joe Doe”), speaking with Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2. John joined the conversation. Although neither John nor Joe Doe knew Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2, all four were freshmen at Rider and easily engaged in several minutes of conversation, discussing, among other things, where they were from, where they lived at Rider, coursework, and athletics. 22. While it was clear that both Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2 had been drinking, it was equally clear that neither was incapacitated. Both were able to carry on a conversation, were coherent, were not slurring their words or in need of assistance to stand, and were otherwise in full command of their faculties. In fact, of the four, it was Joe Doe who, upon information and belief, may have been incapacitated because of how much he had had to drink that evening. 6 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 7 of 38 PageID: 105 23. After conversing for several minutes, John and Joe Doe asked Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2 if they wanted to return to Joe Doe’s dormitory room. Both girls readily agreed. The four walked down the hallway from the boys’ restroom to Joe Doe’s dormitory room; Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2 walked to the room willingly, and without assistance, prodding, or coercion of any sort. 24. Upon entering the dormitory room, Jane Roe 2 and Joe Doe went to Joe Doe’s bed, and Jane Roe and John went to Joe Doe’s roommate’s bed (Joe Doe’s roommate was absent for the weekend). The lights were off, and the room was dark. Upon information and belief, Jane Roe 2 and Joe Doe engaged in consensual kissing and light touching for approximately 10 minutes until Joe Doe passed out from his alcohol intake, and Jane Roe 2 left the dormitory room. 25. Jane Roe and John likewise engaged in consensual kissing and light touching. Throughout the encounter, John remained fully clothed, including wearing his sneakers. Jane Roe was also fully clothed until Jane Roe 2 left the room, at which time Jane Roe, on her own and voluntarily, removed her blouse and bra. The entire encounter lasted no more than 20 minutes and progressed no further than John touching Jane Roe’s breasts and Jane Roe rubbing her hands over John’s genitals over his pants. John also sucked on Jane Roe’s lips and neck, leaving her with a hickey. Importantly, for most of the encounter, Jane Roe was on top of John. 26. Equally important, in both words and actions, Jane Roe at all times indicated a willingness to engage in kissing and sexually explicit touching with John. In fact, she indicated a willingness to do more, telling John at the beginning of their encounter that they could not have sexual intercourse because she had her period even though John neither asked nor wanted to have intercourse with Jane Roe. 7 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 8 of 38 PageID: 106 27. The encounter came to an end when Jane Roe and John were interrupted by banging on the dormitory room door and several voices shouting, “Jane.” Upon hearing the knocking and voices at the door, Jane Roe put her bra and blouse back on in the dark room, opened the door, and rejoined her friends. B. Public Safety Conducts Preliminary Interviews 28. Upon information and belief, when Jane Roe rejoined her friends, they noticed that her blouse was on backwards, and there was a hickey on her neck. At least one of her friends believed that the backwards blouse and hickey indicated a non-consensual encounter. Indeed, one of Jane Roe’s male friends confronted John and asked him what he had done to Jane Roe. John responded that he had not forced Jane Roe to do anything and that his encounter with Jane Roe was voluntary and consensual. 29. Following that exchange, John closed the door and went to bed. 30. Two hours later, at approximately 5:00 a.m., John was awoken by Public Safety. He was told that the officers were investigating a sexual assault and that they needed John to accompany them to the Public Safety building to provide a written statement. John complied. 31. Upon information and belief, between the time Jane Roe left Joe Doe’s dormitory room and the time John was awoken by Public Safety, Jane Roe’s friends convinced Jane Roe that she was the victim of a sexual assault, and she should report the incident to University officials. Upon information and belief, but for her friends’ persistent and misguided prodding, Jane Roe would not have reported her consensual encounter with John to Public Safety. 32. At the Public Safety building, John was not told anything about the nature of Jane Roe’s allegations, but he provided officers with a written statement nonetheless. That statement acknowledged that Jane Roe had been drinking, but made clear that John’s encounter with Jane 8 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 9 of 38 PageID: 107 Roe was at all times consensual. John’s statement was also explicit in stating that he and Jane Roe never progressed beyond kissing and touching; there was no penetrative sexual activity between the two, no oral sex, and no attempted oral sex. 33. Public Safety also instructed Joe Doe to provide a written statement. His statement was consistent with John’s. 34. More significantly, John’s statement—without knowing what Jane Roe had alleged—was consistent with what Jane Roe initially told Public Safety. 35. Prior to interviewing John, at approximately 4:52 a.m., two Public Safety officers had interviewed Jane Roe. During that interview, she stated that “she did not believe that the acts performed [between her and John] involved either her, or John[’s] genitals.” Later, at approximately 6:53 a.m., Jane Roe reaffirmed that statement to Public Safety. Specifically, she was asked, “When you say things got sexual, what exactly took place?” Jane Roe responded, “There was kissing and touching involved. John began to unzip my pants[,] and I stopped him several times [when] this occurred. It wasn’t until the RA threat that he completely stopped.” 36. In that same statement at 6:53 a.m., Jane Roe admitted that she “insisted on staying” with John even after Jane Roe 2 left Joe Doe. Jane Roe also stated that while she did not give “100% consent to the situation,” she “did not fully deny it” either. 37. Jane Roe 2 was likewise twice interviewed by Public Safety officers in the early morning hours of October 18. Her statements were internally contradictory and defied commonsense. On the one hand, she described the dormitory room as “very dark,” but on the other claimed she witnessed John “violent[ly] touching” Jane Roe. And despite this supposed “violent touching,” Jane Roe 2 left the dormitory room without Jane Roe or trying to get Jane Roe to come with her. 9 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 10 of 38 PageID: 108 38. Importantly, in neither statement did Jane Roe 2 allege sexual contact between her and Joe Doe, much less a sexual assault. C. Hours Later, Jane Roe And Jane Roe 2 Tell The Lawrence Township Police Department Wildly Different Stories From What They Earlier Told Public Safety 39. Upon information and belief, sometime in the afternoon of October 18, Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2, along with their parents, met with Dean Anthony Campbell. During that meeting, Dean Campbell saw the hickey on Jane Roe’s neck and said the bruise was more consistent with an assault than a hickey. He urged Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2 to file a report with the Lawrence Township Police Department. 40. Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2 complied. And when they filed their reports with the Police Department during the late evening hours of October 18, they recounted stories for law enforcement officers dramatically different from those they had twice shared with Public Safety just hours earlier and before they had time to speak with one another, their parents, or Dean Campbell. 41. Jane Roe changed her story about her encounter with John. Her new story was directly opposed to what she had twice told Public Safety closer in time to the alleged incident. For the first time, Jane Roe claimed that John “forcibly push[ed] her head down and plac[ed] his penis in her mouth.” Previously, Jane Roe had told Public Safety that “she did not believe that the acts performed [between her and John] involved either her, or John[’s] genitals.” 42. Jane Roe 2 likewise manufactured new “facts.” For the first time, she claimed that she was the victim of a sexual assault. Specifically, Jane Roe 2 claimed that Joe Doe had digitally penetrated her vagina and rubbed her breasts. For the first time, she claimed that she had seen John pushing Jane Roe’s head into his groin area. And for the first time, she claimed 10 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 11 of 38 PageID: 109 that she had to force her way out of the dormitory room; previously, Jane Roe 2 said she had simply left the room. 43. Based on Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s statements, on October 19, 2015, Dean Campbell suspended John from the University for sexual assault. Shortly thereafter, Joe Doe was suspended from the University for the same charge. 44. The University took those actions before either law enforcement officers or University officials had any opportunity to prove or disprove Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s allegations and before John and Joe Doe had a chance to rebut those allegations and present their case pursuant to the University’s Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy (“Policy”)—a Policy that entitles students charged with sexual misconduct to certain rights and protections. This was merely the first instance of several of the University violating both the letter and spirit of its own Policy during the investigation and prosecution of John. D. Rider And Dean Campbell Repeatedly Violate The University’s AntiHarassment And Non-Discrimination Policy, As Well As The Source, In The Lead-up To The Formal Hearing 45. Whenever there is an allegation of sexual misconduct on Rider’s campus, the investigation and, if necessary, adjudication of that allegation is governed by the Policy. John was provided with a copy of the Policy at the time of his suspension and was told—repeatedly throughout the process—that Rider would abide by the Policy and afford him all of the rights and protections included therein. John relied on those representations and promises. 46. John was also provided with a copy of Rider’s student handbook, The Source, at the time of his suspension and was told—then and repeatedly throughout the process—that Rider would abide by The Source and afford him all of the rights and protections included therein. John relied on those representations and promises. 11 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 12 of 38 PageID: 110 47. The Policy begins with the following commitment in the form of a letter to the community from Robert Stoto, the University’s Title IX Coordinator: “All students, faculty, administrators and staff at the University have the right to expect an environment that allows them to enjoy the full benefits of their work or learning experience.” (Policy at 1, attached hereto as Exhibit A). 48. John, however, was denied that environment; as set forth more fully below, the University repeatedly ignored and violated the Policy, as well as The Source, during its investigation and adjudication of John for sexual assault. Those violations, both separately and in the aggregate, created a fundamentally unfair process that adjudged John guilty from the very first and stripped him of his ability to adequately defend himself and demonstrate his innocence. 49. Rider’s first violation was of The Source. (Relevant pages of The Source are attached hereto as Exhibit B). According to The Source, “Within five academic days of the invocation of [an interim] suspension, a community standards panel must determine whether grounds still exist to warrant its continuation.” (Ex. B at 89). The purpose of the community standards panel, composed of administrators and students, is to determine whether the interim suspension imposed by the University should be maintained, revoked, or modified. Of course, to fulfill its obligations, the community standards panel must be independent of and serve as a check on the University and the decision-maker who imposed the interim suspension. 50. Dean Campbell suspended John on October 19. Pursuant to The Source, a community standards panel was empaneled to review Dean Campbell’s interim suspension order. John presented his case before the community standards panel, and was thereafter excused so the panel could conduct its deliberations. 12 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 13 of 38 PageID: 111 51. The room that John and his parents were excused to was in the Vice President for Student Affairs’ office suite. During the time the community standards panel was purportedly deliberating, John and his parents witnessed the chairwoman of the panel having discussions with Dean Campbell. While neither John nor his parents could hear those discussions, upon information and belief, the chairwoman of the panel was discussing John’s case and the interim suspension with the Dean. Such discussions were a clear violation of The Source and the community standards panel’s obligation and function to be an independent check on Dean Campbell. 52. The community standards panel upheld and continued the interim suspension. 53. In the weeks following the community standards panel’s decision to uphold John’s interim suspension, Rider purported to conduct an investigation of Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s allegations consistent with the Policy. Instead, the University’s investigation deviated from the Policy in a number of material ways—all detrimental to John Doe. 54. The Policy requires “a trained investigator or investigators to promptly, fairly and impartially investigate the complaint.” (Ex. A at 18). One of the officers assigned by the University to investigate Jane Roe’s complaint was Detective William Eggert of Rider’s Public Safety Office. Detective Eggert was neither fair nor impartial. 55. Detective Eggert assembled a summary affidavit detailing Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s allegations. The affidavit parroted Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s statements to the Lawrence Township Police Department and completely ignored the girls’ earlier—and contradictory—statements to Public Safety, the office out of which Detective Eggert himself works. Detective Eggert made no attempt to be complete, let alone impartial. He simply 13 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 14 of 38 PageID: 112 accepted wholesale Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s revised and changed statements without exercising a critical or inquiring eye. 56. Detective Eggert and officials likewise failed to take the investigative steps required by the Policy. According to the Policy, “In the case of sexual violence, a sexual assault response team (SART) will be activated by the hospital should a victim seek medical attention and/or wish to have evidence collected. A specially trained sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) will respond as part of the team to perform the examination. The evidence will be secured whether or not a victim decides to pursue criminal prosecution.” (Id. at 10). 57. Jane Roe alleged that she was the victim of a sexual assault. John requested from the University all evidence secured by the SART and SANE; John was told that none existed. Detective Eggert’s and the University’s failure to abide by the Policy and activate a SART and SANE in response to Jane Roe’s allegations of sexual assault impeded John’s ability to challenge Jane Roe’s allegations or otherwise impeach Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s credibility. 58. But while the University demonstrated its bias against John, a male respondent, through its investigation of—or failure to thoroughly investigate—Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s allegations, clearer evidence came through the words of University officials themselves. First, there was Dean Campbell’s statement on October 19 that he was “going against” John. 59. That was followed by a November 19 e-mail from Rider’s outside counsel to John’s counsel. That e-mail, written while the University’s investigation was ongoing, and weeks before the formal hearing to consider John’s guilt or innocence was convened, asserted: We … have statements from those involved in the incident (including your client) that reveal your client and another student encountered two female students, who no one disputes, were under the influence of alcohol. Also undisputed are the facts that your client and the other male student met these female students for the first time on the evening/morning in question and within minutes 14 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 15 of 38 PageID: 113 of meeting them, proceeded to take the two female students back to a dorm room. Once in the room, and again undisputed, the room was dark and your client and the other male student separated the female students and took them to separate beds. Because an individual that is under the influence of alcohol cannot give consent, any activity that occurred in the dorm room, was nonconsensual. … I am not deciding this case, but the above facts reveal [that the interim suspension of John was supported by sufficient evidence]. I also want to respond to your contention that the two female students are not credible because they have inconsistent statements. There are numerous articles/studies that reveal that it is not unusual – and indeed typical – for sexual assault victims to give inconsistent statements. While your client is free to point out the inconsistencies, he (and you) should be aware that there is a contrary view. 60. While the University’s attorney was careful to say that he was “not deciding the case,” he did just that in the immediately preceding sentence, declaring that “any activity that occurred in the dorm room[] was non-consensual.” 61. The attorney reached this conclusion before the University’s investigation was concluded, before any formal hearing was convened, and before John ever had the opportunity to present his full version of the night’s events or confront Jane Roe or Jane Roe 2. 62. More troubling, the attorney reached this conclusion by misconstruing the Policy. The Policy does not state that a person “under the influence of alcohol” cannot give consent. Rather, the Policy says that an incapacitated student cannot give consent. (Id. at 4) (“A person who is asleep or mentally or physically incapacitated, whether due to the effect of drugs or alcohol, or for any other reason, is not capable of giving valid consent.”). There was absolutely no evidence proffered on or before November 19—or after—indicating that Jane Roe was incapacitated at the time of her encounter with John. 15 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 16 of 38 PageID: 114 63. This rush to believe Jane Roe—a female—to the detriment of John Doe—a male—was fundamentally unfair, but not surprising given the bias Rider exhibited in favor of Jane Roe and against John Doe throughout the disciplinary process. Indeed, Rider has made explicit where its sympathies lie in instances of alleged sexual assault. On its webpage titled “Sexual Assault,” Rider gives the following advice about how to help a friend who has been sexually assaulted: “BELIEVE the survivor.” (See http://www.rider.edu/student-life/healthwellness/counseling-services/sexual-assault) (emphasis in original). E. Rider And Dean Campbell Continue To Violate The University’s AntiHarassment And Non-Discrimination Policy During The Disciplinary Hearing 64. In the weeks following November 19, the University continued with its investigation. Upon information and belief, the University did so to make it appear as if the University was adhering to the Policy and had not pre-judged John responsible for sexual assault when, in fact, the University had. 65. The result of the University’s “investigation” was a one-page letter charging John with sexual assault and advising him that his punishment could include expulsion from the University. A formal hearing before a three-person Student Anti-Harassment and NonDiscrimination Board (“Board”) was set for December 4. 66. The empanelment of the Board and the hearing process is governed by the Policy. 67. According to the Policy, “[T]he Board’s procedures are designed to ensure due process for the complainant and respondent….” (Ex. A at 21). The University violated this mandate from the start. 68. The Policy defines “sexual assault” broadly. According to the Policy, a sexual assault “occurs when an unwelcomed physical contact of a sexual nature is intentional and is 16 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 17 of 38 PageID: 115 committed either by (a) physical force, violence, threat, or intimidation; (b) ignoring the objections of another person; (c) causing another’s intoxication or impairment through the use of drugs or alcohol; or (d) taking advantage of another person’s incapacitation, state of intimidation, helplessness, or other inability to provide consent.” (Id. at 5). 69. The one-page letter charging John failed to identify what subsection or subsections of the sexual assault definition John had allegedly violated. It was unclear if the charge was premised on the hickey on Jane Roe’s neck, the oral sex allegation, Jane Roe’s alleged incapacitation from alcohol, or something else. Several times, both in writing and orally, John asked the University to clarify its theory of the charge so he could prepare his defense and secure his right to a fair process guaranteed by the Policy. Each time, the University refused. 70. As a result, John did not have adequate notice of the alleged facts supporting the alleged Policy violation or of what aspect of the sexual assault provision he was alleged to have violated. 71. Without adequate notice of the facts and allegations supporting the alleged Policy violation, John was unfairly hindered in his efforts to defend himself against Jane Roe’s accusations. 72. Additionally, the University refused John’s request for a fair and impartial Board. 73. According to the Policy, “The Board will be composed of three (3) impartial and trained, professional staff members of the community appointed by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee).” (Id. at 21). 74. Just days before the December 4 formal hearing, John learned that the three designated Board members all reported, either directly or through others, to Dean Campbell. This was a clear conflict of interest. It was Dean Campbell who had urged Jane Roe and Jane 17 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 18 of 38 PageID: 116 Roe 2 to make a report to the Lawrence Township Police. It was Dean Campbell who had suspended John on October 19, 2015. It was Dean Campbell who had summarily declared that he was “going against” John. And, on information and belief, it was Dean Campbell who had directed the community standards panel to continue John’s interim suspension. 75. Additionally, it was Dean Campbell who had actively impeded John’s efforts to continue his coursework notwithstanding the interim suspension. Pursuant to the Policy, John made an appeal to the University and Dean Campbell for academic support during his interim suspension, (see id. at 11), but the University and Dean Campbell refused. 76. Despite this clear conflict of interest, the University failed to recuse any of the Board members. 77. As feared, the Board members’ bias quickly became evident. 78. The Board vigorously and aggressively questioned John, while delicately questioning Jane Roe, Jane Roe 2, and their witnesses. 79. Prior to and again at the formal hearing, John had requested all medical records from Jane Roe. Jane Roe and the University failed to provide John with the requested records. 80. According to the Policy, “In the absence of good cause as determined by the Board Chair in their [sic] sole discretion, the complainant and respondent may not introduce witnesses, documents, or other evidence at the hearing that were not timely provided to the Board Chair as set forth above.” (Id. at 21-22). But the Board was content to ignore this directive, and allowed Jane Roe to provide verbal testimony of the results of her medical treatment. According to Jane Roe, those results showed that she was the victim of a sexual assault. 18 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 19 of 38 PageID: 117 81. When John attempted to question Jane Roe about her medical records, the Board quickly and abruptly blocked the questioning. This was a clear violation of the Policy. 82. According to the Policy, “The Board Chair is empowered to disallow any questions that are irrelevant or redundant.” (Id. at 23). John’s questions about Jane Roe’s medical records and treatment were neither irrelevant nor redundant, particularly when the Board invited those questions by ignoring the Policy in favor of Jane Roe and allowing her to enter evidence about her medical treatment that was never provided to John and which he was not allowed to rebut or challenge in any way. 83. Such actions were fundamentally unfair and denied John the “due process” the Policy promised. 84. On December 8, 2015, in a one-page letter, the Board found John responsible for sexual assault and expelled him from the University. There was no written opinion or basis for the Board’s decision. Just as John was left to guess at what he had been charged with, he was left to guess at why he had been found responsible and based on what alleged conduct. 85. John appealed the Board’s decision, but without an opinion or other decision to challenge, he was forced to guess at the basis for the decision. 86. On January 8, 2016, the University rendered its decision on the appeal. “Responsible.” “Expulsion.” Consistent with everything that came before, the University delivered its decision in a one-page letter. 87. In every substantive phase of the disciplinary proceedings in John’s case, Rider University committed material breaches of its written policies and procedures, which adversely impacted the outcome of the case and resulted in a fundamentally unfair disciplinary process. 19 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 20 of 38 PageID: 118 F. Rider Continues To Violate Its Contractual Obligations And Duties Under The Family Educational Rights And Privacy Act (“FERPA”) Due To Its Refusal To Provide John With The Audio Recordings Of The Disciplinary Hearing 88. Promptly following the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing and appeal, John, through his attorney, made several requests, both orally and in writing, for copies of the audio recordings of his disciplinary hearing, which are part of his educational record. 89. In response to John’s several requests, the University’s attorney assured John’s attorney that copies of the audio recordings would be promptly provided. They never were, nor was John ever invited by the University to make an appointment to listen to the audio recordings on Rider’s campus. Months later, John is still without the audio recordings of his own disciplinary hearing. 90. The University’s continued refusal to provide John with copies of the audio recordings is a violation of the University’s obligations as outlined in The Source. (Ex. B at 7273) (“Students who want to inspect and review their records may make an appointment with the Dean of Students or his/her designee, Bart Luedeke Center, Students Affairs Suite, on the Lawrenceville campus…. Copies of information contained in a student’s own file may be requested, in writing, and will generally be released only if failure to do so would effectively prevent a student from reviewing his/her records.”). 91. The University’s continued refusal to provide John with copies of the audio recordings is also a violation of the University’s acknowledged obligations under FERPA. On the University’s own website, under a link entitled “FERPA Resources,” the University acknowledges that pursuant to FERPA, “College students must be permitted to inspect their own education records.” (See also Ex. B at 73) (discussing a student’s right to access his or her education records in accordance with FERPA). 20 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 21 of 38 PageID: 119 92. Perhaps most importantly, the University’s refusal to provide John with copies of the audio recordings has inhibited John’s ability to meaningfully consult with his attorneys, prepare this Complaint, and, ultimately, vindicate his rights. G. The False Accusations Leveled Against John, And Rider’s Uncritical Embrace Of Those Allegations, Has Left John Emotionally Scarred 93. Rider University’s Title IX disciplinary process is fundamentally flawed. While it claims fairness for both complainant and respondent, it is concerned with the complainant alone. Dr. James Castagnera, Esq., Rider’s Associate Provost/Legal Counsel for Academic Affairs and one of the members on John’s appeal panel, made this very point in his blog. 94. On information and belief, Dr. Castagnera quoted a Rider administrator in his blog speaking about the University’s Title IX process. According to Dr. Castagnera, the administrator said, “In order to remedy the lack of quick and effective resolution of sexual assault cases in our courts, the Department of Education wants colleges and universities to do what the justice system can’t … by lowering the standard of proof from ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to ‘more likely than not,’ and requiring that sexual-assault investigations plus adjudications be completed in 60 days.” 95. Dr. Castagnera continued, “As I discovered earlier this year, when I dared, during supervisory training at a university, to criticize the due-process flaws in the campus-based system imposed by the DOE on sexual-assault investigations/adjudications, the attack dogs remain ready to slip their leashes against anyone with the temerity to come out openly against this latest American domestic ‘war.’” 96. On information and belief, Dr. Castagnera was writing about Rider University. 97. Dr. Castagnera’s comments are clear in their message and chilling in their import. According to Dr. Castagnera, Rider University has created a disciplinary process designed to 21 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 22 of 38 PageID: 120 remedy perceived flaws in the criminal justice system at the expense of fundamental fairness. And anyone foolish enough to make that observation—that Rider has created a process that is designed to, at all times, believe and support female complainants over male respondents—is summarily “leash[ed].” 98. The “due-process flaws” that Dr. Castagnera wrote about were lived—for months—by John. He lives them still today. As a result of the University’s uncritical and unquestioning embrace of Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s allegations, and the University’s flawed Title IX disciplinary process, John has experienced significant emotional and psychological scarring. 99. Following imposition of the interim suspension on October 19, John locked himself away in his parents’ home. Depressed, he sought professional counseling. He continues to receive treatment today. 100. And John’s wrongful accusation and expulsion has had real and visible health effects on John. He has had wild fluctuations in weight, suffered sleepless night after sleepless night, and had, almost on a weekly basis, severe emotional breakdowns during which neither family members nor friends was able to console him. 101. At various points throughout the University’s investigation and disciplinary process, John telephoned his parents distraught. On several occasions, one or both of John’s parents were forced to rush home for fear that John might hurt himself. COUNT I (Breach of Contract) 102. John repeats and alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein. 22 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 23 of 38 PageID: 121 103. At all times relevant hereto, a contractual relationship existed between John and the University through the Policy and The Source. 104. Rider is required to act in accordance with its written policies and procedures in investigating and adjudicating reports of alleged violations of student conduct standards. 105. Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, Rider materially breached its express and/or implied agreement(s) with John by failing to comply with its obligations, standards, policies, and procedures in the course of the disciplinary proceedings against John, and by subjecting him to a fundamentally unfair process. 106. Rider’s material breaches included without limitation the following acts or omissions: a. continuing John’s interim suspension through a process that did not allow independent review of the initial decision to suspend; b. conducting an investigation that was neither fair nor impartial; c. failing to follow the Policy regarding gathering evidence by the SART and SANE; d. prejudging John’s guilt from the start and continuing that judgment throughout the process; e. applying an inappropriate standard to the issue of Jane Roe’s capacity to consent; f. misconstruing the appropriate standard for lack of capacity to consent to sexual activity; g. failing to give John proper notice of the basis of the charges against him, failing to provide the bases for a finding of responsibility, and/or failing to 23 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 24 of 38 PageID: 122 provide in its procedures for adequate notice of charges or the bases for decisions; h. failing to convene an impartial and unbiased hearing Board free from conflicts of interest; i. failing to conduct an impartial and fair hearing by, among other things, subjecting John, the accused, to harsher questioning than that used with Jane Roe or her witnesses and allowing Jane Roe to introduce medical evidence that was not previously submitted to the Board Chair as required by the Policy; j. failing to properly train its hearing Board members to conduct fair and impartial hearings and deliberations with regard to sexual assault allegations; and k. failing to provide John with copies of the audio recordings of the disciplinary hearing to which he was entitled. 107. John is entitled to recover damages for Rider’s breach of its express and/or implied contractual obligations described above. 108. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of these breaches, John sustained significant damages, including, without limitation, emotional distress, physical distress, loss of educational and athletic opportunities, economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. 109. As a result of the foregoing, John is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements. 24 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 25 of 38 PageID: 123 COUNT II (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 110. John repeats and alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth 111. Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, Rider breached and herein. violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the agreement(s) between the University and John by failing to abide by its own regulations and by disciplining John notwithstanding the lack of evidence in support of Jane Roe’s claim of sexual assault, other than Jane Roe’s threadbare and inconsistent statements. 112. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of these breaches, John sustained significant damages, including, without limitation, emotional distress, physical distress, loss of educational and athletic opportunities, economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. 113. John is entitled to recover damages for Rider’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing described above. 114. As a result of the foregoing, John is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements. COUNT III (New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act) 115. John repeats and alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth 116. New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2, provides consumer herein. protection by declaring as unlawful an “act, use or employment by any person of any 25 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 26 of 38 PageID: 124 unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” 117. Rider has engaged in the following acts or practices that are deceptive or misleading in a material way, or committed deceptive acts or practices, which were aimed at the consumer public at large, that were a representation or omission likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances: a. by causing John to believe that Rider would follow the Policy and The Source, copies of which were provided to John and are also available on Rider’s website; and b. by causing John to believe that if he paid tuition and fees to Rider, that Rider would uphold its obligations, covenants, and warranties to John described in the Policy and The Source. 118. Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, Rider engaged in unfair and/or deceptive trade practices in violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act. 119. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of the University’s deceptive acts and practices, John sustained significant damages, including, without limitation, emotional distress, physical distress, loss of educational and athletic opportunities, economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. 26 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 27 of 38 PageID: 125 120. As a result of the foregoing, John is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements. COUNT IV (Promissory Estoppel and Reliance) 121. John repeats and alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth 122. Rider’s Policy, The Source, and related materials constitute representations and herein. promises that Rider should have reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance by John. 123. Rider expected or should have expected John to accept its offer of admission, incur tuition and fee expenses, and choose not to attend other colleges or universities based on its express and implied promises that Rider would not tolerate, and John would not suffer from, a denial of his procedural rights should he be accused of a violation of the Policy. 124. John relied to his detriment on these express and implied promises and representations made by Rider. 125. Based on the foregoing, Rider is liable to John based on Estoppel. 126. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of the above conduct, John sustained significant damages, including, without limitation, emotional distress, physical distress, loss of educational and athletic opportunities, economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. 127. As a result of the foregoing, John is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements. 27 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 28 of 38 PageID: 126 COUNT V (Negligence) 128. John repeats and alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth 129. Rider owed duties of care to John. Such duties included, without limitation, a herein. duty of reasonable care in the investigation, hearing, and determination of the allegations of sexual misconduct against him. 130. Rider breached those duties by, among other things: a. removing him from campus arbitrarily and without due process; b. continuing John’s interim suspension through a process that did not allow independent review of the initial decision to suspend; c. conducting an investigation that was neither fair nor impartial; d. failing to follow the Policy regarding gathering evidence by the SART and SANE; e. prejudging John’s guilt from the start and continuing that judgment throughout the process; f. applying an inappropriate standard to the issue of Jane Roe’s capacity to consent; g. misconstruing the appropriate standard for lack of capacity to consent to sexual activity; h. failing to give John proper notice of the basis of the charges against him, failing to provide the bases for a finding of responsibility, and/or failing to provide in its procedures for adequate notice of charges or the bases for decisions; 28 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 29 of 38 PageID: 127 i. failing to convene an impartial and unbiased hearing Board free from conflicts of interest; j. failing to conduct an impartial and fair hearing by, among other things, subjecting John, the accused, to harsher questioning than that used with Jane Roe or her witnesses and allowing Jane Roe to introduce medical evidence that was not previously submitted to the Board Chair as required by the Policy; and k. failing to properly train its hearing Board members to conduct fair and impartial hearings and deliberations with regard to sexual assault allegations. 131. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of the above conduct, John sustained significant damages, including, without limitation, emotional distress, physical distress, loss of educational and athletic opportunities, economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. 132. As a result of the foregoing, John is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements. COUNT VI (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 133. John repeats and alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth 134. Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, Rider intentionally and/or with herein. willful or wanton indifference to the truth, engaged in conduct to remove John from Rider without regard to the truth of the allegations made by Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2 and without 29 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 30 of 38 PageID: 128 evidence in support of Jane Roe’s and Jane Roe 2’s claims, and otherwise intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon John. 135. The above actions and inactions by Rider were so outrageous and utterly intolerable that they caused mental anguish and severe emotional distress to John, as well as physical harm, financial loss, humiliation, loss of reputation, and other damages. 136. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of the above conduct, John sustained significant damages, including, without limitation, emotional distress, physical distress, loss of educational and athletic opportunities, economic injuries, and other direct and consequential damages. 137. As a result of the foregoing, John is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements. COUNT VII (Violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.) 138. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688, provides in relevant part that “[n]o 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.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 139. Title IX applies to all public and private educational institutions that receive federal funds, including colleges and universities. Rider is a recipient of federal funds and, therefore, is bound by Title IX and its regulations. 140. Rider discriminated against John and deprived him of the benefits of its education program through its discriminatory, gender-biased implementation of its disciplinary process and by expelling him as a result of that process. 30 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 31 of 38 PageID: 129 141. Under Title IX, schools must “[a]dopt 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].” 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b) (emphasis added). Both the Department of Education and Department of Justice have set forth this requirement by way of regulation. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.8(b) (Dep’t of Education); 28 C.F.R. § 54.135(b) (Dep’t of Justice). 142. In 2001, the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) of the Department of Education, the office that administratively enforces Title IX, promulgated regulations pursuant to notice-andcomment rulemaking in a document entitled “Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties” (“2001 Guidance”). Title IX’s regulations, including the 2001 Guidance, have the force and effect of law, because they affect individual rights and obligations and were the product of notice-andcomment rulemaking. 143. OCR’s 2001 Guidance “identified a number of elements in evaluating whether a school’s grievance procedures are prompt and equitable. . . .” (Id. at 20). These elements apply to private and public colleges and universities and include: • “Notice to students . . . of the [school’s] procedure;” • “Adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints, including the opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence;” and • “Designated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major stages of the complaint process.” (Id.). 31 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 32 of 38 PageID: 130 144. OCR’s 2001 Guidance further stated that “[a]ccording due process to both parties involved, will lead to sound and supportable decisions.” (Id. at 22) (emphasis added). Title IX’s “due process” requirement applies to both state and private colleges and universities. (Id. at 2, 22). 145. On April 4, 2011, the OCR issued a “significant guidance document” commonly referred to as the “Dear Colleague Letter.” (Letter from Russlynn Ali, Assistant Sec’y for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Office for Civil Rights (Apr. 4, 2011) at n. 1, available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf (hereinafter “2011 Dear Colleague Letter”)). 146. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter reinforced the authority and applicability of the 2001 Guidance and reaffirmed that the right to have a prompt and equitable resolution applies to both the accuser and the accused in cases involving allegations of sexual violence. (Id. at 9) (emphasis added). 147. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter further expanded on the 2001 Guidance’s elements of prompt and equitable resolution: • Notice of the grievance procedures. “The procedures for resolving complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, should be written in language that is appropriate to the age of the school’s students, easily understood, and widely distributed.” (Id.). • Adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of complaints. At minimum, Title IX regulations require schools to: (1) “[p]rovide equitable grievance procedures;” (2) afford the accuser and the accused “[a]n equitable opportunity to present relevant witnesses and other evidence;” and (3) “[a]fford [the accuser 32 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 33 of 38 PageID: 131 and the accused] similar and timely access to any information that will be used at the hearing.” (Id. at 10-11) (emphasis added). In cases involving sexual violence, OCR also instructed schools to ensure that the fact-finder and decisionmaker have “[a]dequate training or knowledge regarding sexual violence,” observing that “[i]f an investigation or hearing involves forensic evidence, that evidence should be reviewed by a trained forensic examiner.” (Id. at 12, n. 30). • Designated and reasonably prompt time frames. “Grievance procedures should specify the time frame within which: (1) the school will conduct a full investigation of the complaint; (2) both parties receive a response regarding the outcome of the complaint; and (3) the parties may file an appeal, if applicable. Both parties should be given periodic status updates.” (Id.). 148. Rider violated Title IX and demonstrated its gender bias against male students accused of sexual assault as follows without limitation: a. by suspending John prior to conducting an “adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation” of Jane Roe’s complaint, thereby presuming his guilt from the start of the disciplinary proceeding. (Id. at 9); b. by pre-judging John’s guilt and pre-determining the finding of “responsible” from the start of the process with the pronouncement by Dean Campbell that he was “going against” John immediately after the complaint was made; c. by failing to explore in its investigation the inconsistencies in the several statements given by Jane Roe and Jane Roe 2, thereby giving more favorable treatment to the female complainant and her witnesses; 33 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 34 of 38 PageID: 132 d. by subjecting John to Rider’s disciplinary procedures without providing him with the nature of the allegations against him, thereby impairing his ability to defend himself against the accusations; e. by misinterpreting and applying the wrong standard of incapacitation as it relates to consent under the Policy; f. by creating a Title IX disciplinary process replete with due process flaws, which encouraged administrators to believe the accuser over the accused, and “leash[ed]” any administrator who argued that the University’s process was inherently biased against the male accused in favor of the female accuser; and g. by conducting an unfair hearing process, allowing the female complainant to present medical evidence not previously shared with John or the Board Chair prior to the hearing as required by the Policy, by not allowing John to rebut the medical “evidence” submitted by the female complainant, and by treating the female complainant and her witnesses more favorably during the hearing. 149. Further, Rider’s Policy and its application of the Policy was deliberately designed to favor the female accuser and disfavor the male accused by, among other things, eliminating from the process the most fundamental procedural safeguards for the accused set forth in Title IX. 150. Upon information and belief, in the context of sexual assault cases, Rider’s procedurally deficient process is deliberately designed to subject male students as a group to less 34 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 35 of 38 PageID: 133 favorable treatment than female students because accused students in sexual assault cases are overwhelmingly, if not always, male. 151. For instance, while the Policy calls for a normal 60-day completion time for investigations regarding sexual assault or misconduct complaints, it allows for longer periods of time “where the complainant agrees that a longer period of time would be appropriate or circumstances require it.” (Ex. A at 15). No such right is given to the accused student to agree or not with any extensions. 152. Additionally, if after an investigation, the University decides not to proceed with a Formal Adjudication, the complainant is allowed to appeal that decision. (See id. at 19). No such commensurate right is given to the accused student to appeal the University’s decision to go forward with a Formal Adjudication. 153. In John’s case, the evidence that a forcible sexual assault occurred was ambiguous at best given the lack of objective evidence, including medical evidence. Nevertheless, John was afforded no right to appeal the University’s decision to proceed to a Formal Adjudication. 154. The outcome of Rider’s flawed proceeding against John was clearly erroneous, and was motivated on the basis of sex. The University was on notice of, and was deliberately indifferent to, the serious flaws in the investigation, the lack of equity and fairness, and the gender bias that infected the process. Rider’s implementation of the Policy is motivated by and premised on archaic assumptions and stereotypical notions of the sexual behavior of male and female students—i.e., male students are perceived as sexual aggressors and perpetrators and female students are perceived as sexual victims. The University’s conduct was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denied John equal access to education that Title IX is designed to protect. 35 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 36 of 38 PageID: 134 155. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of Rider’s aforementioned Title IX violations, John has a gap in his record and a finding in his record that brands him a sexual predator. John will forever have to explain this gap in his record and the disciplinary findings to potential colleges and future employers. Further, Rider’s biased and outcomedeterminative process will adversely affect John’s academic and career prospects, earning potential, and reputation. He has sustained significant damages, including but not limited to, severe emotional distress, damages to his physical well-being, emotional and psychological damages, damages to his reputation, past and future economic losses, loss of educational, athletic, and professional opportunities, loss of future career prospects, and other direct and consequential damages. 156. As a result of the foregoing, John is entitled to injunctive relief and damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements. COUNT VIII (Declaratory Judgment) 157. John repeats and alleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth 158. Rider has committed numerous violations of its contracts and of federal and state 159. John’s education and future career prospects have been severely damaged. herein. law. Without appropriate redress, the record of Jane Roe’s false complaint will continue to cause irreversible damages to John, with no end in sight. 36 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 37 of 38 PageID: 135 160. 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 academic and disciplinary records at Rider. 161. By reason of the foregoing, John requests, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, a declaration that: (i) John’s disciplinary and academic records be expunged of any and all adverse findings related to the flawed disciplinary proceeding at Rider; and (ii) any record of Jane Roe’s false complaint be permanently destroyed. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, John Doe, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: a. Order Rider University to reverse and expunge its findings of responsibility and sanction of expulsion from John’s education record; b. Order Rider to provide a Dean’s Certification that shall be made available to third parties (such as educational institutions and prospective employers) certifying that Rider has reversed and expunged the findings and sanction; c. Award John compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including without limitation, damages to John’s physical well-being, emotional and psychological damages, damages to John’s reputation, past and future economic losses, loss of education, athletic, and professional opportunities, loss of future career prospects, and other direct and consequential damages; d. Award prejudgment interest; e. Award attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to statutory or common law doctrines providing for such award; f. Grant such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. 37 Case 3:16-cv-04882-BRM-TJB Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 38 of 38 PageID: 136 s/ Lee Vartan Lee Vartan, Esq. Holland & Knight 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-513-3513/Fax: 212-385-9010 Email: lee.vartan@hklaw.com Patricia M. Hamill, Esq. (PA Attorney No. 48416) Jeannette M. Brian, Esq. (PA Attorney No. 66169) Conrad O’Brien PC 1500 Market Street Centre Square – West Tower, Suite 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19102-2100 Phone: 215-864-9600/Fax: 215-864-9620 Email: phamill@conradobrien.com jbrian@conradobrien.com Date: August 11, 2016 38 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 39 PageID: 39 Exhibit A Anti-Harassment and Non-Discriminat? 42$? 4 1:41;, ?gure Lawn? [m I, Him Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 39 PageID: 41 Notice of the Title IX Coordinator As a community of educators and learners, Rider University is committed to fostering an environment dedicated to learning and mutual respect as re?ected in the University?s mis? sion, Statement of Community Values, Anti?Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy and Title IX. All students, faculty, administrators and staff at the University have the right to expect an environment that allows them to enjoy the full bene?ts of their work or learning experience. rIhe University, therefore, does not condone violations of its AntieHarassment and Non-Discrimination Policy and treats all allegations about violations very seriously. As outlined in the Anti?Harassment and NonwDiscrimination Policy, the University prohibits all forms of discrimination, harassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, sexual harass? ment, dating violence, domestic violence and stalking. Rider University is an Equal Opportunity and A?irmative Action Employer. No one will be denied employment at, admission to, or the opportunity to participate in educational pro? grams and activities at the University on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, handicap/ disability, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ethnicity, status as a Vietnam?era quali?ed disabled veteran or other protected veteran, or status as a member of any other protected class under federal or state law. The University does not discriminate on the basis of any of the aforementioned protected bases in the recruitment and admission of students, the recruitment and employment of faculty, admin? istrators and staff, and the operation of any of its programs and activities. The Associate Vice President for Human Resources serves as both the Af?rmative Action Of?cer and the Title IX Coordinator for the University, and is the resource available to anyone seeking additional information or wishing to ?le a complaint related to Af?rmative Action and discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, handicap/disability, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ethnicity, status as a Vietnam?era, quali?ed disabled veteran or other protected veteran, or status as a member of any other protected class under federal or state law. The Af?rmative Action Of?cer and the Title IX Coordinator for the University may be contacted as follows: Robert Stoto Associate Vice President for Human Resources/ Title Di Coordinator and Af?rmative Action Officer Moore Library, Room 108 (609) 895?5683 rstoto @rider.edu Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 39 PageID: 42 University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy Rider University prohibits all forms of discrimination, harassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, dating Violence, domestic violence and stalking. The University?s Anti?Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy (the ?Policy?) governs the treatment of harassment and discrimination cases at Rider University including sexual ha? rassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking. To the extent this policy con?icts with provisions found in the University Student Code of Conduct or the University Employee Handbook, the terms of this Policy shall apply. The Policy applies to conduct described above that occurs on University premises, at Univer? sity sponsored activities, and off?campus conduct that violates the Policy and the University believes poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of any members of the University come munity or any residents of neighboring communities. The Policy applies to all students and employees, and to third?parties on University premises or at University sponsored activities. The Associate Vice President for Human Resources is the University?s Title IX and Af?rma? tive Action Of?cer and the designated coordinator for compliance With this policy. The Title lX Coordinator may be contacted as follows: Robert Stoto Associate Vice President for Human Resources/ Title IX Coordinator Moore Library, Room 108 (609) 895?5683 rstoto@rider.edu The University?s Title lX Coordinator is the resource available to anyone seeking addi- tional information on the University?s Anti-Harassment and NoneDiscrimination Policy or Wishing to ?le a complaint related to A?irmative Action and discrimination. The U.S. Department of Education, Of?ce for Civil Rights (OCR), is the federal agency charged with enforcing compliance With Title IX. Information regarding OCR can be found at: enigov/ocr. Retaliation Prohibition Rider University prohibits retaliation (including, but not limited to, intimidation, threats, coercion or discrimination) against any individual Who complains of a violation of the Pol? icy or assists in providing information about a complaint of discrimination or harassment including, but not limited to, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, dating violence, domestic violence and stalking. Definitions Discrimination involves unfair treatment of a person or group based on prejudice regarding their personal characteristics. Rider University does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap/ disability, age, Rider University Antiui-iarassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 1 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 39 PageID: 43 marital status, national origin, ethnicity, status as a Vietnam?era, quali?ed disabled veteran or other protected veteran, or status as a member of any other protected class under federal or state law, in employment or in the application, admission, operation, participation, access and treatment of employees and students, in any of the University?s programs and activities as speci?ed by federal law and regulations. Additionally, it is the policy of Rider University to provide an environment for prospective and current students, job applicants, employees and other third parties that is free from harassment and intimidation on account of an in- dividual?s race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap/ disability, age, marital status, national origin, ethnicity, status as a Vietnam?era, quali?ed disabled veteran or other protected veteran, or status as a member of any other protected class under federal or state law. Harassment is any action that may reasonably be expected to threaten, coerce, or intim- idate an individual or a class of individuals or substantially interfere with an individuals work or education experience. Where the alleged harassment involves a potential violation of federal or state anti?discrimination laws, the University?s Af?rmative Action O?icer (or designee) will be called upon to investigate the allegations, using procedures outlined in the Policy. Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed either to (1) limit the legitimate exercise of free speech, including but not limited to written, graphic, electronic or verbal expression that can reasonably be demonstrated to serve legitimate education, artistic, or political purposes, or (2) infringe upon the academic freedom of any member of the Uniw versity community. Sexual Harassment is de?ned as unwelcome sexual advances (including, but not limited to, sexual assault and sexual misconduct), requests for sexual favors, and/ or physical, verbal or written conduct of a sexual nature when: Submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual?s employment, education, or participation in University programs or activities, or 0 Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for decisions pertaining to an individual?s employment, education, or participation in University programs or activities, or Such speech or conduct is directed against another and is abusive or humiliating and persists after the objection of the person targeted by the speech or conduct, or Such conduct would be regarded by a reasonable person as creating an intimidate ing, hostile or offensive environment that substantially interferes with an individu? al?s work, education, or participation in University programs or activities. In the educational setting Within the University, as distinct from other work places within the University, Wide latitude for professional judgment in determining the appropriate content and presentation of academic material is required. Conduct, including pedagogical tech niques, that serves a legitimate educational purpose does not constitute sexual harassment. Those participating in the educational setting bear a responsibility to balance their rights of free expression with a consideration of the reasonable sensitivities of other participants. 2 Rider University Anti-Harassment and NonuDiscrimEna?tion Policy 1 September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 39 PageID: 44 Supplemental Definitions These supplemental de?nitions are more likely to be relevant in harassment and discrimi? nation cases involving alleged student misconduct, but also Will be utilized in cases where employee or third party misconduct is alleged, When appropriate. These supplemental de?- nitions will be uSed during the Formal Hearing stage to determine charges and sanctions. Advisor is a person chosen by each of the complainant and respondent who is permitted to accompany the complainant and respondent respectively to any hearing and/ or any related meetings. The advisor is not permitted to be an active participant in the hearing or any related meetings. Complainant is anyone who submits a charge alleging that an individual violated the Policy and/or anyone Who is alleged to have been the subject of a violation of the Policy. Often- times the individual submitting the charge and the individual who is the subject of the violation are the same. In instances Where the subject of the violation is different from the individual submitting the charge, both individuals Will have the same rights afforded to the complainant under the Policy. Respondent is anyone who is alleged to have violated the Policy. Third Party is anyone who is not a student or employee of the University. Consent is an understandable exchange of af?rmative words or actions that indicate a Willingness to participate in mutually agreed upon sexually explicit touching or sexual pen? etration. Consent is active, not passive, and must be informed and freely and actively given. Coercion, force or threat of coercion or force invalidates consent. It is incumbent upon each individual involved in the activity to either obtain or give consent prior to any sexual activity, and again, prior to sexual penetration. If at any time during the sexual interaction any confusion or ambiguity should arise on the issue of consent, it is incumbent upon each individual involved in the activity to stop and clarify, verbally, the other?s Willingness to continue. A verbal C?no,? even if it may sound indecisive or insincere, constitutes lack of consent. When consent is requested verbally, absence of any explicit verbal response constitutes lack of consent. Consent can be Withdrawn at any time. But it is expected that, after consent has been established, a person Who changes their mind during the sexual activity Will communicate through words or actions, their decision to no longer proceed. Past consent to sexual activity does not imply future ongoing consent, and the fact that two persons reside together or are in an on-going relationship does not preclude the possibility that sexual misconduct or sexual assault might occur Within that relationship. Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 3 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 7 of 39 PageID: 45 A person who is asleep or mentally or physically incapacitated, whether due to the effect of drugs or alcohol, or for any other reason, is not capable of giving valid consent. Consent is not valid if a reasonable person would understand that such a person is incapable of giving consent. 0 A person?s use of alcohol, other drugs, and/ or other intoxicants does not diminish their responsibility to obtain informed and freely given consent. Cyber?harassment is the willful and repeated use of computers, cell phones or other electronic communications to engage in conduct that may reasonably be expected to threaten, intimidate, harass or discriminate against an individual or a class of individuals, substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the University, or substantially interferes with an individual?s work or education experience. Conduct that may rise to the level of cyber-harassment includes, but is not limited to, the following: Using any form of electronic communication (including the Internet, email, text messages, instant messages, photo messages, discussion boards, digital images/ video/ audio, blogs or social networking sites) to threaten, humiliate, harass, intimi? date, or discriminate against an individual or a class of individuals; Sending threatening, harassing, intimidating, or discriminating messages to anyone, including using the University email server to send such messages to individuals outside of the University; Breaking into or using without an individual?s authorization an online account and sending messages Without that individual?s consent; Creating a fictitious or anonymous on-line account and posting threatening, harassing, or discriminatory information or posting an individual?s personal identifying information; Taking or downloading pictures of someone and posting those pictures without that person?s consent When such pictures may reasonably be expected to threaten, humiliate, harass, intimidate, or discriminate against an individual or a class of individuals; or 0 Engaging in on-line ?ghting or trash-talking. Dating Violence is a violent act committed by a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the complainant and where the existence of such a relationship is determined based on the reporting party?s statement and with con~ sideration of the following factors: the length of the relationship the type of relationship the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship Dating violence includes, but is not limited to, sexual or physical abuse or the threat of such abuse. It does not include acts that meet the de?nition of domestic violence. 4 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy 1 September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 8 of 39 PageID: 46 Domestic Violence is a violent act committed by: A current or former spouse or intimate partner of the complainant; or A person with whom the complainant shares a child in common or is about to share a child in common; or A person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the complainant (including, but not limited to, a roommate); or A person similarly situated to a spouse of the complainant under state or federal domestic or family violence laws including the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991 at 5392); or Any other person against an adult or youth complainant who is protected from that person?s acts under state or federal domestic or family violence laws, including the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991 2025?17 et seq. Violent acts that rise to the level of domestic violence include homicide, assault, terroristic threat in violation of federal or state law, kidnapping, criminal restraint in violation of fed? eral or state law, false imprisonment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, lewdness, criminal mischief in Violation of federal or state law, burglary, criminal trespass in Violation of federal or state law, harassment, and stalking. Hostile Environment exists when sexual harassment (including all forms of sexual violence) is suf?ciently serious to limit or deny a member of the University community the ability to participate in or bene?t from the University?s educational or employment programs or activities. Sexual Assault occurs when an unwelcomed physical contact of a sexual nature is intentional and is committed either by physical force, violence, threat, or intimidation; ignoring the objections of another person; causing another?s intoxication or impairment through the use of drugs or alcohol; or taking advantage of another person?s incapacitation, state of intimidation, helplessness, or other inability to provide consent. For purposes of the University?s annual security report, a sexual assault is an offense that meets the de?nition of rape, fondling, incest, or statutory rape as used in the Uniform Crime Reporting program. Sexual Misconduct occurs when the act is committed without the intent to harm another and where, by failing to correctly assess the circumstances, a person believes unreasonably that consent was given without having met his/her responsibility to gain such consent. Sit? uations involving physical force, violence, threat or intimidation fall under the definition of Sexual Assault, not Sexual Misconduct, and will be treated as such under these procedures. Stalking occurs when an individual engages in a course of conduct directed at a speci?c person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person?s safety or the safety of others, or suffer substantial emotional distress. ?Substantial emotional distress? under this policy is de?ned as signi?cant mental suifering or anguish that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. A ?course of conduct? under this policy is defined as two or more acts including, but not limited to, acts in which the Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy I September 2015 5 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 9 of 39 PageID: 47 stalker directly, indirectly or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about a person, or interferes with a person?s property. Statement on Consensual Relations between Faculty and Students, Athletic Staff and Student-Athletes and Employees and Subordinates Consensual romantic and/ or sexual relationships between employees (including faculty and athletic staff) and students with whom they also have an academic, supervisory or evaluative relationship, or between an employee and their subordinate, is fraught with the potential for exploitation and may compromise the University?s ability to enforce its policy against sexual harassment. Employees must be mindful that the authority that they exercise in their interactions with students and subordinates may affect the decision of a student or a subordinate to enter into or end a romantic or sexual relationship. Even when both parties initially have consented, the development of a sexual relationship renders both the employee and the institution vulnerable to possible later allegations of sexual harassment in light of the signi?cant power differential that exists between faculty members and students, athletic staff members and student~athletes or supervisors and subordinates. In their relationships with students and subordinates, faculty, athletic staff and supervisors are expected to be aware of their professional responsibilities and to avoid apparent or actual con?ict of interest, favoritism, or bias. When a sexual or romantic relationship exists, effective steps should be taken to ensure unbiased evaluation or supervision of the student or subordinate. Reporting and Confidentially Disclosing Complaints of Violations of the Policy Members of the University community are strongly encouraged to report all ex? perienced or observed incidents of discrimination and harassment, including sexual assault, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, dating violence, domestic violence and stalking. Prompt reporting allows individuals to get the support they need and enhances the ability of the University to respond appropriately. Reporting Complaints of Employee Violations oftbe Policy Complaints alleging that an employee or (non?student) third party violated the Policy, whether ?led by an employee, a student, or a third party, should be reported to the As sociate Vice President for Human Resources who is the University?s Title IX Coordinator, Af?rmative Action Officer and the designated coordinator for compliance with this Policy. 6 Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 10 of 39 PageID: 48 Robert Stoto Associate Vice President for Human Resources/ Title IX Coordinator Moore Library, Room 108 (609) 895-5683 rstoto@rider.edu The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will notify the relevant vice?president/ division head and the president of the union (if the respondent is a bargaining unit member) as soon as possible after receiving the complaint and provide the complainant, respondent, the relevant vice?president/ division head and the union president (when appropriate) with a copy of the complaint and this Policy. Reporting Complaints of Student Violations of the Policy Complaints alleging that a student violated the Policy, whether made by an employee, student or a third party, should be reported to the Associate Vice President for Human Resources who is the University?s Title IX Coordinator, Af?rmative Action Of?cer, and the designated coordinator for compliance with this Policy. Robert Stoto Associate Vice President for Human Resources/ Title IX Coordinator Moore Library, Room 108 (609) 895?5683 rstoto@rider.edu Alternatively, complaints may be reported to the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, the Department of Public Safety, or anonymously as follows: Anthony Campbell, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Bart Luedeke Center, Room 1 10 (609) 896-5101 acampbel@rider.edu Department of Public Safety West House, Lawrenceville campus Bristol Chapel, Princeton campus Both campuses: (609) 896-5029 (non?emergency) (609) 896?7777 (emergency) Silent Witness Form (anonymous reporting) is available via Rider?s Web site at For all matters involving students, the Department of Public Safety prepares written documentation that serves as the complaint and sets forth the allegations concerning the Policy violation. Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Poiicy September 2015 7 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 11 of 39 PageID: 49 Amnesty Provision RegardingAlcobol Policy and/or Student Code of Conduct Violations The health and safety of the University community is of paramount concern to all members of Rider University. The University recognizes that an individual who has been drinking or using illegal substances at the time of an incident may be hesitant to file a complaint of an alleged violation of the Policy for fear that they may face Alcohol Policy or Student Code of Conduct sanctions for their drinking or use of illegal substances. An individual who reports an alleged violation of the Policy will not be subject to sanctions by the University under the Alcohol Policy or Student Code of Conduct for their own 0011* sumption of alcohol or illegal substances at or near the time of the incident, provided that any such violations did not and do not place the health or safety of any other person at risk. In addition, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) shall have discretion to grant amnesty from an alcohol or substance abuse violation to any witness to an alleged violation of the Policy upon a showing of good cause. The University may, however, initiate an educational discussion or pursue other educational remedies regarding the use or abuse of alcohol or other illegal substances if applicable. Reporting and Con?dentially Disclosing Sexual Violence: Know the Options University employees have different abilities to maintain a complainant?s confidentiality. Disclosing an allegation or incident to the Title IX Coordinator, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, Department of Public Safety or any other respon? sible employees (described in the section that follows) constitutes a report to the University and generally obligates the University to investigate the incident and take appropriate steps to address the situation. Responsible employees are required to report information concerning an incident to the Title IX Coordinator. A complainant is free to discuss an incident or allegation, in confidence, with Counseling Center and Chaplain Center sta?f. These staff are not required to report any information about an incident to the Title IX Coordinator or Associate Vice President for Student AEairs without a complainant?s permission. 0 A complainant is also free to discuss an incident or allegation, in con?dence, with Student Health Services staff. 'Ihese staff are required to only report to the Title IX Coordinator, the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, or Department of Public Safety that an incident occurred without revealing any personally identify- ing information. Disclosures to these staff will not trigger a University investiga? tion into an incident against the complainant?s wishes. PLEASE NOTE: A complainant who speaks to Counseling Center, Chaplain Center or Student Health Services staff and who wants to maintain con?dentiality should understand that the University will be unable to conduct an investigation into the particular incident or pursue disciplinary action against the respondent. A complainant who at ?rst requests con?dentiality may later decide to file a complaint with the University or law enforcement authorities and thus have the incident fully investigated. Assistance in that regard will be provided if the complainant chooses to do so. 8 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy 1 September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 12 of 39 PageID: 50 Responsible Employees Responsible employees are University employees who have the authority to redress sexual violence, who have the duty to report incidents of sexual violence or other student misconduct, or who a student could reasonably believe have this authority or duty. When a complainant tells a responsible employee about an alleged violation of the Policy, the responsible employee shall report the incident to the Title IX Coordinator, who shall take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate what happened and to resolve the matter fairly and impartially. To the extent possible, information reported to responsible employees will be shared only with people responsible for handling the University?s response to the report. Responsible employees will not pressure a complainant to request con?dentiality and will not pressure a complainant to make a full report if the complainant is not ready to do so. All Rider University employees (faculty, administrators and staii) are considered responsible employees EXCEPT for those listed below. Responsible employees also include students who are employed by Residential Programs as Resident Advisors, House Managers, Resident Directors and House Directors. Counseling Center, Chaplain Center and Student Health Center professional and non?professional staff (to whom a complainant can report con?dentially). The Prevention Education Coordinator (ASAP), who works in the Student Health Center, is not included in this exemption. Facilities (non-management) staff Aramark (food services), DTZ (custodial), Barnes and Noble (bookstore), University Athletic Management (SRC Fitness Center) and Collegiate Press staff are NOT Rider employees and are therefore NOT considered responsible employees. Requesting Con?dentiality ?om the University If a complainant discloses an incident to the Title IX Coordinator, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, the Department of Public Safety or a responsible employee but also wants to maintain con?dentiality or requests that no investigation into a particular incident be conducted or disciplinary action be taken, the University will weigh that request against its obligation to provide a safe, n0n~discrirninatory environment for all students, faculty and staff, including the complainant. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) is responsible for evaluating requests for confidentiality. If the University honors the request for con?dentiality, a complainant must understand that the University?s ability to meaningfully investigate the allegation and pursue disciplinary action against the respondent may be limited. Additionally, the level of appropriate action the University can take in response to the allegation depends on the complainant?s partici? pation in the process. Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Poiicy September 2015 9 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 13 of 39 PageID: 51 There may be times, however, when the University may not be able to honor a complainant?s request for con?dentiality in order to provide a safe, non?discriminatory environment for all students, faculty and staff. Factors that will be considered when weighing such requests include, but are not limited to, the following: the increased risk that the respondent will corn- mit additional acts of sexual or other Violence; whether a weapon is involved; whether the complainant is a minor; whether the complainant?s report reveals a pattern of perpetration by the respondent; and whether the University has other means to obtain relevant evidence (security cameras, physical evidence, etc.). The presence of one or more of these factors could lead the University to investigate and, if appropriate to pursue disciplinary action. If the Title 1X Coordinator (or designee) determines that the complainant?s con?dentiality cannot be maintained, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will inform the complainant prior to starting an investigation and will, to the extent possible, share information only with people responsible for handling the University?s response. Additionally, if the University determines that the respondent poses a serious and imme? diate threat to the University community, it will issue a timely warning. A timely warning, communicated via email, RiderAlert, website, and/ or building signage, is used to notify the University community of crimes committed on campus or in the surrounding area. Any such warning will not include any information that identi?es the complainant. Victim Assistance and Support If You Are a Victim ofSexual, Domestic or Dating Violence: Getting Help as Soon as Possible The University encourages victims of sexual, domestic and/ or dating violence to talk to someone about what happened so that victims can get the support they need and the University can respond appropriately. Students have the right to simultaneously file a criminal complaint and a complaint to the University under this Policy. Victims of sexual, domestic or dating violence are encouraged to seek medical attention and preserve evidence that may assist in proving that the alleged violation occurred do not bathe, shower or change clothes) regardless of whether or not a victim decides to pursue criminal prosecution at any point. Other evidence that should be preserved includes text and email messages, bedding and clothing. In the case of sexual violence, a sexual assault response team (SART) will be activated by the hospital should a victim seek medical attention and/ or wish to have evidence collected. A specially trained sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) will respond as part of the team to perform the examination. The evidence will be secured Whether or not a victim decides to pursue criminal prosecution. If a victim chooses not to pursue criminal prosecution, the evidence will not be tested and will be held for at least ?ve (5) years as per State Attorney General directive. A sexual assault care advocate will be available to assist a Victim through the process. 10 Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy 1 September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 14 of 39 PageID: 52 University Assistance A complainant can expect the following assistance from the University when an allegation of a policy violation is made, whether the alleged violation occurred on or off campus. The University will: 0 Provide a written explanation regarding the complainant?s rights and options as outlined in the Campus Sexual Assault Victim?s Bill of Rights (provided at the end of this booklet), the Anti-Harassment and Noaniscrirnination Policy and related procedures. Provide or assist in obtaining University and/ or community?based services for health, mental health, legal, emotional and other support (see back pages for contact information). Provide noti?cation about and assistance with protective measures and/ or options for accommodations/ changes to academic, living, transportation or work situations (see ?Protective Measures and Accommodations? section that follows), provided that reasonable alternatives are available, regardless of whether the complainant chooses to report the alleged incident to the University or law enforcement authorities. This includes student ?nancial aid information related to withdrawing from a class or the University, loan repayment terms and other related information. 0 Provide information about options regarding reporting the incident to law enforce? ment and/ or University authorities, including that the complainant can decline to notify such authorities, but that the University will support a complainant, if the complainant chooses, to proceed through the University disciplinary proceedings and/ or with ?ling a complaint with law enforcement authorities and/ or pursuing with law enforcement authorities orders of protection, restraining orders or similar lawful orders. 0 Provide information about how the University will protect the complainant?s con?dentiality, to the extent permissible by law, including how the University will meet its public record?keeping obligation regarding the incident without disclosing personally identifying information about the complainant. The ultimate decision regarding whether the complainant wants to proceed with health, mental health, legal and/ or counseling services belongs to the complainant. Complainants are free from any pressure from University personnel to report an incident to law enforce- ment authorities if they do not Wish to do so, report an incident as a lesser offense than a complainant perceives the crime to be, refrain from reporting an incident, and/ or refrain from reporting an incident to avoid unwanted personal publicity. Protective Measures and Accommodations The Title 1X Coordinator and/ or the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs (or des? ignee) has the authority to take all reasonable and prudent measures to protect the com- plainant, the respondent, and all third party Witnesses pending completion of any of the procedures outlined in the Policy. Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 11 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 15 of 39 PageID: 53 Protective measures and accommodations may include, where reasonably available, administrative directives no contact orders see paragraph below) interim suspensions changes to housing, transportation, dining facilities, work schedules, academic schedules Withdrawal or retaking of a class without penalty access to academic support such as tutoring a delay/ suspension in the awarding of a degree and/ or certifying graduation The University will maintain as con?dential any protective measures or accommodations provided to the complainant, to the extent that maintaining such con?dentiality would not impair the ability of the University to provide the protective measures or accommodations. The University will notify the complainant in advance if personally identifying information about the complainant is necessary to obtain an accommodation or protective measure. Students may request protective measures and/ or accommodations by contacting: Anthony Campbell, Associate Vice President for Student Aifairs and Dean of Students Bart Luedeke Center, Room 110 (609) 896?5 101 acampbel@rider.edu Department of Public Safety West House, Lawrenceviile campus Bristol Chapel, Princeton campus Both campuses: (609) 896?5029 (non?emergency) (609) 896?7777 (emergency) Employees may request interim protective measures and/ or accommodations by contacting: Robert Stoto Associate Vice President for Human Resources/ Title IX Coordinator Moore Library, Room 108 (609) 895-5683 rstoto@rider.edu in incidents involving students, the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs (or des? ignee) may issue an administrative directive in the form of a no-contact order if deemed appropriate. The no?contact order may include a directive that the complainant and respon- dent refrain from contacting each other through direct, indirect, electronic or other means or engage in any disruptive conduct pending resolution of the complaint. The Associate Vice President for Student Affairs (or designee) may also take any further protective action he deems appropriate, in his sole discretion, concerning the interaction of the complainant 12 Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 16 of 39 PageID: 54 and respondent pending resolution of the complaint. Violation(s) of the orders, directives, and/or protective actions of the Associate Vice President for Student A?airs (or designee) shall constitute related offenses as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct. Investigating and Resolving Complaints of Employee Violations of the Policy The University offers both informal and formal procedures for fairly and impar- tially investigating and resolving complaints of employee violations of the Policy. Informal and formal procedures will be initiated as soon as possible and within ?ve (5) calendar days of the ?ling of the complaint, absent any unusual circumstances. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will either assign a mediator or investigator as described below. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will notify the respondent that a complaint has been ?led against them and pro~ vide the respondent a copy of the complaint. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will explain to both the complainant and respondent the avenues for informal and formal action as appropriate, including a description of the process and the relevant avenues of redress to the complainant and respondent and provide them a written summary of the process. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) Will notify the relevant vice-president/ division head and the president of the union (if the respondent is a bargaining unit member) as soon as possible after receiving the complaint and provide the respondent, complainant, the relevant vicempresident/ division head and the union president (When appropriate) with a copy of the complaint. All investigations, Whether resolved by informal or formal means, Will be conducted as expeditiously as possible and normally will be completed Within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of the complaint, except Where other circumstances require it. Holidays, days When the University has scheduled a recess, or emergency or other closings are not counted. With limited exceptions, the same process will apply during the University?s summer recess. Informal Procedures for Employee Violations of the Policy Mediation is an informal, voluntary process that allows the complainant and respondent involved in an alleged complaint of discrimination or harassment to discuss their respective understandings of the incident with each other through the assistance of a trained mediator. Mediation is designed to encourage each person to be honest and direct With the other and to accept personal responsibility Where appropriate. Mediation is only offered as an option if both the complainant and respondent are employees of Rider University. Mediation is not appropriate for certain cases, such as alleged sexual assaults, even on a voluntary basis. Upon the consent of all parties to the complaint, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee), with relevant supervisors when appropriate, will seek an outcome through mediation to be conducted by University staff or an external professional engaged by the University Any resolution through mediation also must be mutually agreed upon by all parties to the com- plaint. Both the complainant and respondent have the right to bypass or end the informal complaint process at any time in order to begin the formal stage of the complaint process. Rider UniVersity Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy I September 2015 13 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 17 of 39 PageID: 55 Records arising from informal procedures will not be used for any purpose other than those described above unless a complaint subsequently results in a formal hearing or otherwise becomes part of a legal action. Since informal level records represent allegations not sup? ported by formal ?ndings of fact, they will be maintained in a con?dential manner separate from any other records for four years. Theywill be destroyed after that period if no further allegations or formal complaints have been received concerning the same individual. Such records shall not be used as evidence of guilt or innocence in any investigation or hearing involving a future complaint involving the same respondent. The respondent is entitled to include a response to documents contained in the con?dential personnel Formal Procedures for Employee Violations of the Policy If the allegation of harassment has not been resolved as a result of the informal procedures or is of the kind, in the Title IX Coordinator?s (or designee) opinion, that is not suitable to informal resolution, or if either the complainant or respondent request to begin the formal complaint process, a formal investigation will be initiated. The respondent will be afforded fourteen (14) calendar days from the date that the formal investigation was initiated to provide a written response to the allegations. A copy of any response will be provided to the complainant. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will either investigate the matter or assign the matter to an investigator (in either instance the ?Investigator?) to fairly and impartially investigate the complaint. The investigation of all formal complaints will include, When appropriate, interviews of the (I) complainant, (2) the respondent, and (3) any witnesses and other persons who are identi?ed as having relevant information and who agree to be in! terviewed. The complainant and respondent will have the opportunity to identify witnesses and other evidence for consideration. If the respondent is represented by a bargaining agent, the respondent may have that agent present at any interview with the Investigator. The Investigator Will investigate the complaint and report the results, conclusions and recommended actions, if any, to the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) and the appro- priate vice-president/ division head. A summary of the report will also be provided to the complainant and respondent. Upon the recommendation of the Title IX Coordinator (or designee), the appropriate viceapresident/ division head will initiate disciplinary action as soon as reasonably practicable, when in their judgment it is appropriate, and Will attempt to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent recurrence of the offending behavior and to correct its discriminatory effects on the complainant and others, if appropriate. The com~ plainant, respondent, and the union president (when appropriate) Will be informed of the ?nal decision and any actions to be taken. The respondent is entitled to include a response to allegations, investigative ?ndings, and documents included in the con?dential personnel or student file(s), as the case may be. Implementation of, and challenge to, any disciplinary action will be handled according to applicable procedures, as provided by the relevant collective bargaining agreement. i4 Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy I September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 18 of 39 PageID: 56 Appeals of Resolution afEmployee Violations In instances where the complainant and respondent are members of the collective bargain? ing agreement, any appeal of a ?nal decision will be governed by the appeal process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. In instances where the complainant is a student and the respondent is an employee, the student appeal shall be handled by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee). A student seeking to appeal a ?nal decision shall notify the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) in writing of the speci?c grounds for the appeal with seven (7) calendar days of the date of the ?nal decision. The non?appealing party has seven (7) cale endar days to respond to any written appeal. A non?appealing party is under no obligation to respond to any appeal. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) shall review the record to determine if the ?nal decision was within the bounds of the rationally available choices given the facts and standards set forth in the Policy. The Title IX Coordinator?s decision on the appeal shall be ?nal. Investigating and Resolving Complaints of Student Violations of the Policy The University offers both informal (mediation) and formal (formal adjudication) proce- dures for investigating and resolving complaints of student violations of the Policy in a fair, unbiased and impartial manner. Mediation is not appropriate for certain cases, such as alleged sexual assaults, even on a voluntary basis. All investigations, whether resolved by informal or formal means, will be conducted as exe peditiously as possible and normally will be completed within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of the complaint, except where the complainant agrees that a longer period of time would be appropriate or circumstances require it. Holidays, days when the University has scheduled a recess, or emergency or other closings are not counted. With limited exceptions, the same process will apply during the University?s summer recess. Mediation is an informal, voluntary process that allows the complainant and respondent involved in an alleged complaint of discrimination or harassment to discuss their respective understandings of the incident with each other through the assistance of a trained mediator. Mediation is designed to encourage each person to be honest and direct with the other and to accept personal responsibility where appropriate. Mediation is only offered as an option if both the complainant and respondent are students at Rider University. If either student is less than 18 years of age, the University may require that the minor student?s parent consent in writing to the student?s participation in the mediation. Mediation is not appropriate for certain cases, such as alleged sexual assaults, even on a voluntary basis. Formal Adjudication is the formal process for investigating complaints of student viola? tions of the Policy. A complaint is formally adjudicated when it involves sexual assault, when the discrimination or harassment complaint has not been addressed as a result of mediation, or if either the complainant or respondent requests referral to Formal Adjudication as de? scribed below. Formal adjudication involves a fact??nding investigation along with a hearing or other related decision?making process to determine if the alleged incident occurred and What actions the University must take in response. A formal investigation is initiated by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) as the ?rst step in the process. Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 15 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 19 of 39 PageID: 57 Mediation (Informal Procedures for Investigating and Resolving Complaints of Student Violations of the Policy) Con?dentiality oft/9e Mediation Process In order to promote honest, direct communication and a resolution through mediation, information disclosed in Mediation must remain con?dential, except where disclosure may be required as set forth in this Policy, under law or as may be authorized by the Title TX Coordinator (or designee) in connection with responsibilities of the University. Mediation Process The mediation process will proceed as follows: 1. Initiating Mediation: In cases where Mediation is appropriate, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will discuss with the complainant and respondent Whether or not they are willing to participate in Mediation. in addition, the mediation process can be initiated any time prior to the formal adjudication of the case. Both the complainant and respondent must agree to the Mediation in writing. 2. Assignment of a Mediator: Once the complainant and respondent have agreed to Mediation in writing, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will appoint a trained mediator (the c?Mediator?) who will mediate the case. The Mediator will be appointed within fourteen (14) calendar days of the agreement of the complainant and respondent to participate in Mediation. The Mediator will contact the complainant and respondent to set the date, time, and location of the mediation session(s). Mediation Procedures 1. Persons Participating: Typically only the Mediator and the complainant and respondent will be participants in the mediation session(s). However, either the complainant or respondent may request and the Mediator in their sole discretion may permit each party to have a support person present. The extent of the participation of support person(s) in the mediation is subject to the sole discretion of the Mediator. Mediation Process: During the mediation process, the Mediator normally will: (1) ask the complainant and respondent to give their versions of the incident, in? cluding both factual information and their feelings; (2) identify key issues; (3) seek the agreement of both the complainant and respondent on the issues; (4) facilitate discussion; and (5) work with both the complainant and respondent to develop a written document that will include a statement of agreement. No offers of apology or concessions are required to be made during the mediation. 16 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Poiicy 1 September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 20 of 39 PageID: 58 Mediation Outcomes 1. Mediation Resolution: Any statement of resolution by mediation Will be incorporated into an agreement (the ?Mediation Agreement?), to be signed by both the complainant and respondent, the Mediator, and will be approved by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) before it takes effect. Any activity or behavior, or prohibition thereof, to which either the complainant or respondent has agreed in the mediation will be included in the Mediation Agreement. Since an individ? uals entry into a Mediation Agreement is voluntary, there is no right to appeal by either the complainant or respondent from the terms of the Mediation Agreement once it has been signed by the complainant and respondent, the Mediator, and approved by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee). The approval of the Mediation Agreement by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) constitutes a directive of the Title IX Coordinator requiring both the complainant and respondent to fully comply With all the terms of the Mediation Agreement. The Mediation Agreement will be kept on ?le at the Of?ce of the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs. If either the complainant or respondent believes the terms of the Mediation Agree- ment have not been met by the other individual, they may contact the Title IX Coordinator, who will ask the Mediator or other designated person to investigate the allegation of noncompliance. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) may take such action as he deems appropriate in response to the investigation of noncomw pliance With the Mediation Agreement, or at his sole discretion, the matter may be referred to an Investigator, followed by a hearing before a Board, if such further investigation and/ or sanctions are warranted. 2. Non?Resolution and Referral to Formal Adjudication: If either the complainant or respondent is dissatis?ed with the mediation process at any time prior to the signing of a Mediation Agreement, that party may request that the mediation process cease. In such a case, absent an express determination to the contrary by the Title IX Coordinator (Whose discretion in such determination is exclusive and ?nal), Formal Adjudication may only be pursued if the request is initiated within one (1) calendar year of the termination of the mediation process provided, how- ever, that for good cause shown as determined in the sole discretion of the Title IX Coordinator, this period of time may be extended. In the event that Formal Adjudication occurs after some part of the mediation process has taken place but prior to any resolution at mediation, only the complaint form Will be forwarded by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) to the assigned Investigator. Formal Adjudication (Formal Procedures for Investigating and Resolving Complaints of Student Violations of the Policy) The formal adjudication process for investigating and resolving complaints of student Violations of the Policy will be conducted as expeditiously as possible and normally will be completed within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of the complaint, except where the complainant agrees that a longer period of time would be appropriate or circumstances require it, including when mediation is being conducted. Holidays, days when the University has scheduled a recess, or emergency or other closings are not counted. With Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy I September 2015 17 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 21 of 39 PageID: 59 limited exceptions, the same process will apply during the University?s summer recess. For the purposes of this Policy, the formal adjudication process includes the fact??nding investigation along with a hearing or other related decisionamaking process to determine if the alleged incident occurred and what actions the University must take in response. The University may need to delay temporarily the fact-?nding portion of the investiga? tion if and when law enforcement authorities are gathering evidence. The length of time for evidence gathering by law enforcement authorities Will vary depending on the speci?c circumstances of each case. Interim protective measures can be pursued during this time. Both the complainant and respondent will be updated on the status of the investigation, including when it is resumed. Investigation Con?dentiality oft/1e Investigation In order to comply with laws and regulations protecting education records of students and to provide an orderly process for the determination and consideration of relevant evidence Without undue intimidation or pressure, the investigation ?ndings are con?dential. Investi? gation ?ndings may not be disclosed except as described below or as required or authorized by law or as may be authorized by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) in connection with responsibilities of the University. Investigation Process The investigation process will proceed as follows: 1. Assignment of Investigator: The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will assign the matter to a trained investigator or investigators (the ?Investigator?) to prompt? ly, fairly and impartially investigate the complaint. 2. Conduct of the Investigator: The Investigator will fairly and impartiala ly investigate the complaint. The Investigator may not privately discuss the facts or merits of the case With the complainant or respondent or with anyone acting on behalf of the complainant or respondent. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) Will provide the Investigator With a written copy of the complaint and any other supporting material. Investigation Procedures 1. Initiation of the Investigation: The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will initiate an investigation by notifying the respondent that a complaint has been ?led, informing the respondent of the nature of the complaint, and providing the respondent with a written copy of the complaint. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will explain the process and the relevant avenues of redress to the com? plainant and respondent and provide them a written summary of the process. The 18 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 22 of 39 PageID: 60 respondent will be afforded seven (7) calendar days in which to provide a written response to the complaint, a copy of which will be provided to the complainant. During this seven (7) day period, the investigation may proceed forward. Interviews: The investigation will include, Where permissible, interviews of (1) the complainant, (2) the respondent, and (3) any witnesses and other persons who are identi?ed as possibly having relevant information related to the allegation, and who agree to be interviewed. The investigation also will include a review of relevant documentation and other information the Investigator deems relevant. Investigation Outcomes 1. Investigation Report: The Investigator will prepare a written report (the ?inves? tigation Report?) concerning the results of the investigation. The investigation Report will be distributed to the complainant, the respondent, and the Title IX Coordinator (or a designee). If a Board hearing is held, the Board will also be provided with a copy of the Investigation Report. The respondent may respond in writing to the Investigation Report within seven (7) calendar days of the delivery date of the Investigation Report. Any response will be delivered to the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) for review. Determination of Charges: The Titie IX Coordinator (or designee) reviews the Investigation Report and any response, consult with the Investigator, and make a determination of whether suf?cient facts exist to warrant a Formal Hearing. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) also will determine what charges ?Dis- crimination,? ?Sexual Assault,? ?Sexual Misconduct,? or other forms of ?Sexual Harassment? or other ?Harassment,? or ?Domestic Violence,? ?Dating Violence,? or (?Stalking?), if any, will be referred for a Formal Hearing. That determination wili be communicated in writing to the complainant and respondent in the form of the Notice of Charges or other written communication as appropriate. A complainant whose request for Formal Adjudication is denied may appeal that de- nial to the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) within ?ve (5) calendar days. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) will then review the complaint and the Investigator?s report and all other available case material. The decision of the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) on the appeal is ?nal and not the subject of further appeal. Notice-of Charges: If a Formal Hearing is deemed necessary, the Of?ce of Community Standards will commence the hearing process by providing written notice to the respondent (?Notice of Charges?) stating: (1) the nature of the complaint; (2) the offense alleged (including references, as applicable, to the Standards of Conduct allegedly violated); (3) the name of the complainant; (4) the date, time and place of the Formal Hearing; (5) the date, time, and place of the pre?hearing meeting at which preliminary matters will be discussed as outlined in the ?PreeHearing Meeting(s) and Determination of Witnesses? section that follows; and (6) the names of the Board members (the (?Board?), including the presiding chair. The Notice of Charges is mailed to the respondent?s current local or other address on record with the University and is considered effective three (3) calendar days after such mailing or otherwise when actually received by the respondent, whichever occurs ?rst. The Notice of Charges is simultaneously mailed Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 19 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 23 of 39 PageID: 61 to the complainant?s current local or other address on record with the University along with the date, time, and place of a separate pre-hearing meeting at which preliminary matters will be discussed. 4. Request to Terminate the Investigation: Upon mutual consent, the complainant and respondent may seek to terminate a formal investigation, but the Title IX Coordinator (or designee), in consultation with the Investigator, may nevertheless determine, in his judgment and discretion, that the interests of the University community require the continuation of the formal investigation. Formal Hearing A Formal Hearing before the Student Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Board (the ?Board?) results if and when charges are determined by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) as a result of the Investigation. The Formal Hearing must take place not more than fourteen (14) calendar days after delivery of the Notice of Charges to the respondent, unless the Board Chair, in their sole discretion, allows for a longer period of time. If a complaint is ?led within sixty (60) calendar days of the respondent?s intended gradua? tion, during a University recess or Summer Session, or in other circumstances where the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) determines that the complaint cannot otherwise be resolved in a timely manner, procedural options may be limited. In particular, a Formal Hearing under these circumstances may instead take the form of an administrative hearing by a designated Student Affairs employee appointed by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee). Con?dentiality of the Formal Hearing Process In order to comply with laws and regulations protecting education records of students and to provide an orderly process for the presentation and consideration of relevant evidence without undue intimidation or pressure, the hearing process before the Board is con?dential and is closed to the public. Documents prepared in anticipation of the hearing (such as the Investigators report, the Notice of Charges, or any written prevhearing submissions), documents, testimony, or other evidence introduced at the hearing; or any transcript of the hearing itself, may not be disclosed except as required or authorized by law or as may be authorized by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) in connection with responsibilities of the University. 20 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Poiicy I September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 24 of 39 PageID: 62 Hearing Process The hearing process shall proceed as follows: Composition and Pmpose of the Board 1. Composition of the Board: The Board will be composed of three (3) impartial and trained, professional staff members of the University community appointed by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee). The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) designates one Board member to serve as the presiding chair of the Board (the ?Board Chair?). Challenge of Board Member: A complainant or respondent wishing to challenge the participation of any Board member must notify the Board Chair and the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) in writing, stating the reason(s) for the party?s objection. Such a challenge must be made in writing and delivered to the Board Chair and the Title IX Coordinator at 2083 Lawrenceville Road, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648?3099, Moore Library Room 108, Within seven (7) calendar days of the mailing of the Notice of Charges to the respondent and complainant in the manner set forth in the Notice of Charges section. Except with respect to challenges to the participation of the Board Chair, the Board Chair determines whether the challenge has merit and reserves sole discretion to make changes in the Board?s composition at all times. In the event of a challenge to the participation of the Board Chair, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) determines Whether the challenge has merit and reserves sole discretion to appoint another Board member or other person as the Board Chair for a given hearing. Conduct of the Board: The Board will seek to encourage an open exchange of in? formation Within the rules of con?dentiality articulated in these procedures. While the Board?s procedures are designed to ensure due process for the complainant and respondent, the Board is not bound by the rules of criminal or civil procedures that govern judicial proceedings in court. Board members will serve as impartial fact ?nders and not as advocates for either the complainant or respondent. Once an individual has been named to the Board, they may not privately discuss the facts or merits of the case with the complainant or respondent or With anyone acting on behalf of either the complainant or respondent. The Board Chair Will provide Board members with a copy of the Notice of Charges, the Investigation Report, the incident report, written statements, and list ofwitnesses and docu? ments or other evidence submitted by the complainant and respondent in advance of the hearing date. Pre?Hearz?ng Procedures 1. Pre-Hearing Submissions: No less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing date, the complainant and respondent must provide the Board Chair With brief written statements describing their positions, a list of witnesses they propose to call, and copies of documents and a description of any other evidence they propose to present at the hearing. The Board Chair provides a copy of such written statements and documents to the other party as set forth below. In the absence Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 21 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 25 of 39 PageID: 63 of good cause as determined by the Board Chair in their sole discretion, the complainant and respondent may not introduce witnesses, documents, or other evidence at the hearing that were not timely provided to the Board Chair as set forth above. The complainant and respondent are also responsible for securing the attendance of their proposed Witnesses at the hearing. Pre?Hearing Meeting(s) and Determination of Witnesses: The Board Chair will seek to schedule one or more pre?hearing meeting(s) with the complainant and respondent, either jointly or separately at the sole discretion of the Board Chair, no less than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing date. At the meeting(s), the Board Chair will review hearing procedures with the complainant and respondent. The Board Chair will also review the list of proposed witnesses to assist the com? plainant and respondent in eliminating redundant testimony. At the pre-hearing meeting(s), the Board Chair will provide the complainant and respondent with a copy of the written statement, list of witnesses, and identi?cation or copies of documents or other evidence submitted by the other individual. earring Procedures 1. Hearing Moderator: The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) may designate an administrator to act as a hearing moderator to be present at a hearing to control the hearing and ensure the hearing follows procedural guidelines. The moderator Will be impartial and has no interest or input in the outcome of the hearing. Persons Participating: Typically, the complainant and respondent, their respective advisors, the University?s counsel, the Board members and a moderator are the only individuals present at the hearing. The complainant and respondent may request of the Board Chair to have an advisot of their choice be present at the hearing and any related meetings. The advisor may not be an active participant in the hearing. Should either the complainant or respondent fail to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Board Chair may postpone the proceedings or the Board may proceed and determine the complaint on the basis of the evidence presented, provided the absent party was duly noti?ed in advance of the scheduled hearing date as outlined above. The complainant and respondent are not required to be present at the hearing. However, the exercise of that right does not preclude the Board from proceeding and determining responsibility on the basis of the facts and circumstances presented. If requested, the University will make arrangements such that the complainant and respondent are not present in the same room at the same time as part of the hearing. Recording: The Board Chair will arrange for the hearing to be audioerecorded. Advisors: The complainant and respondent are each entitled to have one advisor of their choice present at the hearing before the Board. Advisors are not permitted to address the Board, examine witnesses or otherwise directly participate in the hearing on behalf of either party. Moreover, advisors will not receive notices, which might be sent to the complainant or respondent. 22 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 26 of 39 PageID: 64 Conduct of the Hearing: The hearing before the Board will not follow a courtroom model. The Board Chair will determine the order of the witnesses and resolve any questions of procedure arising during the hearing. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Investigator will not testify at the hearing unless approved by the Board Chair upon ?nding that the Investigator may have material information that cannot otherwise be provided to the Board. The complainant and respondent will not be expected to repeat undisputed details or non?material circumstances that would merely duplicate the written materials. The Board, in its discretion, may seek to have other persons speak at the hearing. Only the Board Chair and the Board may question the complainant, respondent, and any witnesses. However, the complainant and respondent may ask the Board Chair to pose additional questions or inquire further into speci?c matters by submitting these requests in writing. If necessary, a brief recess may be granted to allow the complainant and respondent an opportunity to prepare and submit such requests. The Board Chair is empowered to disallow any questions that are irrelevant or redundant. After all witnesses have been questioned, the complainant and respondent may make a closing statement and request a short recess to prepare their statement(s). If the Board determines that unresolved issues exist that would be clari?ed by the presentation of additional evidence, the Board Chair may recess the Board hearing and reconvene it for the presentation of additional evidence in a timely manner. A recess may not be based on the failure of witnesses to appear without good cause or on the proposed introduction of documents or other evidence that should have been presented at the pre?hearing meeting(s). Impact Statement: During the hearing, the complainant may present the Board with a statement recommending a sanction (?Impact Statement?). The respondent will be provided an opportunity to respond to the Impact Statement. The Board is not bound by these statements in determining responsibility or the sanction. Witnesses other than the parties normally are not permitted at the Impact State? ment phase of the hearing; however, the Board Chair reserves the sole discretion to authorize the presence of other persons. Hearing Outcomes 1. Standard for Responsibility Finding: All decisions by the Board will be made by majority vote. The Board first determines Whether the respondent is responsible for the alleged discrimination/harassment (including, but not limited to, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, dating violence, domestic violence or stalking) (the ?Responsibility Finding?), and then, if appropriate, determine by majority vote the sanction to be imposed on the respondent (the ?Sanction Finding?). A finding of responsibility must be supported by a ?preponderance of the evidence.? ?Preponderance of the evidence? means that the University establishes that it is more likely than not that the respondent is responsible for committing the act or acts complained of. If the respondent has been charged With ?Sexual Assault,? the Board determines whether that charge has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. If the Board determines that there is not a preponderance of the evidence warranting a ?nding of sexual assault, the Board Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy 1 September 2015 23 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 27 of 39 PageID: 65 then considers Whether sexual misconduct or sexual harassment or other discrim- ination has been established by a preponderance of the evidence, whether or not such conduct or charge is speci?cally set forth in the Notice of Charges. Sanction Findings: After the Board has made a Responsibility Finding, the Board may impose any sanction that it ?nds to be fair and proportionate to the violation and in the interests of the University community, including the respondent and complainant, and that is authorized for violations of the Student Code of Conduct (the ?Sanction Finding?), including disciplinary probation, suspension, and expulsion. In determining an appropriate sanction, the Board may consider any record on the part of the respondent of past violations of the Student Code of Conduct, as well as the nature and severity of the violation(s) and any mitigating circumstances. The Board will consider as part of its deliberations whether the respondent poses a continuing risk to the complainant and/ or University commu? nity. The University expects all cases involving a ?nding of sexual assault to involve consideration of the sanctions of suspension or expulsion. Any sanction imposed is based on a majority vote of the Board. All Sanction Findings require a ?nding that the sanction to be imposed is warranted by a preponderance of the evidence. Sanction Levels: In instances involving student violations of the Policy, the charge(s) will correspond with the following sanction ranges, based on the severity of the alleged violation(s): Harassment/ Discrimination (of a nonwsexual nature) (Level 2 to Level 4) Sexual Assault (Level 1 to Level 2) Sexual Misconduct (Level 1 to Level 3) Sexual Harassment (Level 1 to Level 3) Sexual Discrimination (Level 1 to Level 3) Dating Violence (Level 1 to Level 3) Domestic Violence (Level I to Level 3) Stalking (Level 1 to Level 3) was the an we The aboveereferenced sanction ranges correspond with the sanction levels found in the University?s Student Code of Social Conduct as outlined in The Source rider. edu/t/yesourre). Please refer to page 27 of this booklet for detailed information regarding sanction levels. For purposes of any sanction ?nding under this Policy, a preponderance of the evidence standard will be utilized. Effective Date of Sanction: Sanctions imposed by a Board are not effective until any timely administrative appeal of the decision by the respondent is completed. However, if advisable to protect the welfare of the complainant or the University community, the Board may include in its Determination Letter that any proba? tion, suspension, or expulsion is e?ective immediately and will continue in effect until such time as the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) may otherwise determine in his sole discretion. The Title IX Coordinator (or designee) may suspend the Board?s determination pending exhaustion of an appeal, or allow the respondent to attend classes or participate in other University activity(ies) on a supervised 0r monitored basis. The decision(s) of the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) in this regard is in his sole discretion and is not appealable. 24 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy 1 September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 28 of 39 PageID: 66 5. Determination Letter: Within ten (10) calendar days following the hearing, or such longer time as the Board Chair may for good cause determine, the Board will issue its decision in writing (the ?Determination Letter?). The Determination Letter will be simultaneously mailed to the complainant?s and the respondent?s current local or other addresses on record with a copy provided to the Title IX Coordinator. (Should there be any change to the hearing result prior to the time it becomes ?nal, the complainant and respondent will also be noti?ed simulta? neously in writing.) The Determination Letter will contain only the following information: (1) the name of the respondent; (2) whether the respondent has been found responsible or not responsible of the charges; (3) the sanction imposed, if any; and (4) procedures for ?ling an appeal. University policy neither encourages nor discourages further disclosure of the Determination Letter by either the complainant or respondent. The University encourages a student who wishes to disclose the Determination Letter to any other person to consult with legal counsel before doing so. 6. Early Resolution: The Board Chair may propose a resolution of a complaint and request for Formal Hearing, with the consent of the complainant, at any time in cases where the respondent Wishes to acknowledge responsibility for the acts of discrimination/ harassment (including, but not limited to, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, or sexual harassment) and the respondent agrees to be subjected to a sanction. Appeal The complainant and respondent each may appeal the Board?s decision by notifying the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) in writing of the speci?c grounds for the appeal within seven (7) calendar days of the date of the Board?s decision. The non?appealing party has seven (7) calendar days to respond to any written appeal. A non?appealing party is under no obligation to respond to any appeal. All appeals are reviewed by an appellate panel (the ?Appellate Panel?) consisting of three (3) impartial and trained University of?cials designated by the Title IX Coordinator (or designee). The Appellate Panel reviews the record presented to the Board with respect to the grounds for the appeal. The Appellate Panel will overturn a Board?s decision if it ?nds that the Board exceeded the bounds of the rationally available choices given the facts and standards set forth in the Policy. The decision of the Appellate Panel is based on a majority vote and that decision is ?nal. Primary Prevention Programs and Ongoing Prevention and Awareness Campaigns As de?ned by federal regulation, primary prevention programs are programming, initiatives, and strategies informed by research or assessed for value, effectiveness, or outcome that are intended to stop dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking before they occur through the promotion of positive and healthy behaviors that foster healthy, mutually respectful relationships and sexuality, encourage safe bystander intervention, and seek to change behavior and social norms in healthy and safe directions. Ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns are programming, initiatives, and strategies that are sustained over Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non?Discriminatien Policy September 2015 25 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 29 of 39 PageID: 67 time and focus on increasing understanding of topics relevant to and skills for addressing dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, using a range of strategies with audiences throughout the institution. The University?s primary prevention programs and ongoing prevention and awareness cam? paigns cover the following: The University?s prohibition of all forms of discrimination, harassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, dating violence, domestic violence and stalking. The University?s Anti?Harassment and NonvDiscrimination Policy, including a discussion on what it covers, how it works, the de?nitions of consent and policy violations, and the University?s obligation to report, and fairly and impartially investigate and resolve all complaints of that policy. Bystander intervention strategies which are safe and positive options that may be carried out by an individual or individuals to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Risk reduction information, which includes options designed to decrease perpetra? tion and bystander inaction and to increase empowerment for victims in order to promote safety and to help individuals and communities address conditions that facilitate violence. Provision of the University?s primary and ongoing prevention and awareness programs for students and employees is the joint responsibility of the Title IX Coordinator, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, Director of Public Safety, and Prevention Education Coordinator Alcohol/ Drug 85 Sexual Assault Prevention (ASAP). Primary Prevention Programs Rider University conducts annual primary prevention programs regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking for all new students, faculty, staff and ad? ministrators. The programs occur as follows: 0 At new student orientation during the summer and fall prior to the start of the academic year. Additionally, all new ?rst year and transfer undergraduate students complete an online education program. At new faculty orientation held each summer prior to the start of the academic year. At new employee orientation held throughout the year. 26 Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 30 of 39 PageID: 68 Ongoing Prevention and Awareness Campaigns The University also conducts ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for all students, faculty, staff and administrators as follows: Faculty, Staff and Administrators Annual noti?cation of the Policy and available resources. Annual training for Public Safety, Student AHairs, Residential Programs and Athletic staff. Annual training for University faculty and staff Who serve as investigators, media? tors and hearing board and Appellate Panel members for addressing allegations of Violations of the University?s AntieHarassment and Non?Discrimination Policy. Annual training for advisors of student clubs and organizations including intramu? rals and club sports. Annual training for freshman seminar coordinators. Annual training for all other faculty and stan via regularly scheduled or special department and divisional meetings. Students Annual noti?cation of the Policy and available resources. Annual orientation for all new and returning student?athletes prior to the start of each academic year. Annual training provided to sororities and fraternities, students clubs and organi? zations and to resident students via residence hall and other programming on both campuses. Campus?wide events such as Take Back the Night, Stalking Awareness, The Clothesline Project, Rider Cash Cab, Ina Vagina Monologues, Denim Day, These Hands Don?t Hurt, Sexual Assault Awareness Month (April), Domestic Violence Awareness Month (October) and Safer Spring Break Awareness Week. Violation Levels and Consequences for Students Any Rider University student who engages in any act or conduct proscribed in this Policy may, upon ?nding of responsibility by the appropriate hearing authority, be subject to one or more of the following consequences. Violation Levels For every allegation of misconduct, with the exception of the Alcohol Policy, which has its own sanctioning guidelines, the University assigns a corresponding level of violation. Levels, ranging from 1 (most serious) to 5 (least serious), indicate the alleged seriousness of a violation. Levels also dictate consequences that may be imposed if a student is found Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 27 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 31 of 39 PageID: 69 responsible for misconduct. The hearing authority ultimately determines a level of respon? sibility. A student may be charged at one level by the Community Standards administrator and the standards board or other heating authority may ?nd responsibility at a different level. Hearings are intended to allow a student to dispute the level of Violation in addition . to responsibility. Mitigating factors shall be taken into account by all hearing authorities, along with all relevant circumstances, in determining the appropriate consequence(s) to be assigned at that level. Level 1: a. Level 2: The student may be expelled from the University inde?nitely and possibly permanently. Expulsion may be immediate if warranted. Or, the student must be dismissed for a minimum of one year. Dismissal may be immediate if warranted. As with any other separation from the University, students Wishing to return to Rider must re?apply for admission to the Dean of Students. Students found responsible at this level are not entitled to a refund of tuition or housing costs. a. The student may be dismissed from the University for a period not to exceed one year. If the option in above is not warranted, then the hearing authority must remove the student from residency on campus and impose restrictions on that student?s access to campus areas. In the case of a commuter, the student shall be restricted from entry into non?academic buildings. As with any other separation from the University, suspended students wishing to return to Rider must re?apply for admission to the Dean of Students. In the case of removal from residency, students must apply for housing to the director of residence life. Students found responsible at this level are not entitled to a refund of tuition or housing costs. The student may be put on disciplinary probation for a speci?c time period. The hearing authority may impose any other consequence(s), other than dismissal, which it considers applicable including but not limited to, delay of diploma, nonaattendance at commencement ceremonies, disallowance from entry to campus buildings or areas, loss of group recognition, recommended loss of Greek charter, personal counseling, community restitution, ?nancial restitution, assigned tasks, etc. In every case at this level, except when dismissal is mandated, a ?ne of not less than $75 but not greater than $200 must be imposed. The ?ne may be per person when appropriate. 28 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 32 of 39 PageID: 70 Level 3: a. Level 4: The student?s residency status may be terminated or altered, and he/ she may be restricted from areas on campus. A commuter student may be restricted from some campus buildings or areas. In the case of removal from residency, the student(s) must apply for housing to the director of residence life. In the case of a commuter student, he/ she shall be restricted from non-academic areas and unable to attend campusewide events.) Students found responsible at this level are not entitled to a refund of housing costs. In addition to option a student may be put on disciplinary probation for a period of time. If the options in and above are not warranted, then the hearing authority shall impose a consequence of community restitution hours, or social restrictions for a speci?ed time, during which certain privileges may be revoked including, but not limited to, ability to participate in extracurricular activities, ability to attend or sponsor events such as intramurals or Greek Week, ability to use campus facilities, etc. It may also impose any other consequence(s) which it considers applicable including, but not limited to, non-attendance at commencement ceremonies, assigned tasks, participation in counseling, etc. Note: A violation of the Alcohol Policy at this level requires participation in the Alcohol Education Program. In every case, at this level a ?ne of not less than $30 but not greater than $100 must be imposed. The ?ne may be per person when appropriate. a. 'Ihe student may have social restrictions imposed for a speci?ed period during which certain privileges may be revoked which include, but are not limited to, participation in intramurals, Greek Week, or other social events, ability to visit other buildings or use certain facilities, etc. If the options in above are not warranted, then the hearing authority must include a warning to the student regarding future violations. It may also impose any other consequence(s), excluding those in above, which it considers applicable, including, but not limited to, restitution, assigned tasks, community restitution hours, participation in counseling. Note: A violation of the Alcohol Policy at this level requires participation in Alcohoi Education Program. In every case at this level, a ?ne of not less than $20 but not greater than $50 must be imposed. The ?ne may be per person when appropriate. Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy I September 2015 29 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 33 of 39 PageID: 71 Level 5: a. The hearing authority must impose a consequence of a general warning in the student?s ?le. It may also impose any other consequence(s) which it considers applicable, including but not limited to, community or ?nancial restitution, assigned tasks, participation in the Alcohol Education Program, etc. In every case at this level, a ?ne not greater than $25 must be imposed. The ?ne may be per person when appropriate. Consequences Expulsion Permanent termination of student status. Dismissal Temporary separation of student from University. Such action may be deemed appropriate as a consequence for more serious or repetitious violation of campus regulations. Dismissal shall not be construed as a permanent separation from the community and conditions of readmission (if any are ordered) shall be stated in the hearing authority?s decision. Students dismissed for violations of University policy are considered eligible for readmission to the University, and must apply for readmission through the Dean of Students Of?ce prior to their anticipated return date. Removal from Residence Requirement that the housing contract of the individual with the University be voided and that the individual be removed from the residence halls within ?ve days of the date of the hearing. Note: Removal from residency may occur at the discretion of the director of residence life, consistent with the University Housing agreement, for failure to comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the University exclusive of any community standards process. Alteration of Residence Status Requirement that the residence location of the student he changed by the Residence Life Of?ce within ?ve days of the date of the hearing. Disciplinary Probation Time period during which any future violations will likely result in either removal from residency or suspension from the University depending on the offense and the student?s community standards history. Social Restrictions Restrictions from speci?c privilege(s), extracurricular activities, campus event(s), contact with person or organization, etc. Campus Restrictions Restrictions from being present in campus buildings or areas. Community Restitution Activities or actions designed to return to the community a portion of the goodwill that was taken away by the commission of the violation. Service to the community should be designed to better the social and/ or physical environment of the University and its surrounding community. 30 Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 34 of 39 PageID: 72 1. Financial Restitution Reimbursement for damage to or misappropriation of property. Restitution may take the form of appropriate services to compen? sate for damages. j. Fines w- Monetary amounts imposed within the limits de?ned. Note: Due to historical precedent at WCC, this consequence for Westminster students shall be at the discretion of the hearing authority. k. Referral to Appropriate Counseling Services. 1. Administrative Directive A statement, written, oral, or as part of a Univen sity policy, from an administrator of the University to be complied with by student(s). May require refraining from conduct or completing an act. m. Alcohol Education Program Includes alcohol education class, an online program, and other educational activities to be determined by the counseling center. 11. Warning Notice to the student, in writing, that continuation or repetition of the conduct found wrongful within a period of time as stated in the warning, may be cause for more severe disciplinary action. 0. Other consequences as warranted. New Jersey Campus Sexual Assault Victim?s Bill of Rights NJSAI lE? 1 et.seq. Introduction A college or university in a free society must be devoted to the pursuit of truth and knowl? edge through reason and open communication among its members. Academic communities acknowledge the necessity of being intellectually stimulating where the diversity of ideas is valued. Its rules must be conceived for the purpose of furthering and protecting the rights of all members of the college community in achieving these ends. The boundaries of personal freedom are limited by applicable state and federal laws and in? stitutional rules and regulations governing interpersonal behavior. Respect for the individual and human dignity is of paramount importance in creating a community free from violence, sexual assault and non?consensual sexual contact. The State of New Jersey recognizes that the impact of Violence on its Victims and the sure rounding community can be severe and long lasting. Thus, it has established this Bill of Rights to articulate requirements for policies, procedures and services designed to insure that the needs of victims are met and that the colleges and universities in New Jersey create and maintain communities that support human dignity. Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 31 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 35 of 39 PageID: 73 Bill afRig/Jts The following rights shall be accorded to victims of sexual assault that occur: on the campus of any public or independent institution of higher education in the state of New Jersey, and Where the victim or alleged perpetrator is a student at that institution, and/ or When the victim is a student involved in an off?campus assault. Human Dignity Rights: to be free from any suggestion that victims must report the crimes to be assured of any other right guaranteed under this policy to have any allegations of sexual assault treated seriously; the right to be treated With dignity to be free from any suggestion that Victims are responsible for the commission of crimes against them to be free from pressure from campus personnel to: report crimes if the victim does not Wish to do so report crimes as lesser offenses than the victim perceives the crime to be refrain from reporting crime refrain from reporting crimes to avoid unwanted personal publicity. 0000 Rights to Resources on and o?'Campus: to be noti?ed of existing campus and community based medical, counseling, mental health and student services for victims of sexual assault Whether or not the crime is formally reported to campus or civil authorities to have access to campus counseling under the same terms and conditions as apply to other students in their institution seeking such counseling to be informed of and assisted in exercising: 0 any rights to con?dential or anonymous testing for sexually transmitted diseases, human immunode?ciency Virus, and/ or pregnancy 0 any rights that may be provided by law to compel and disclose the results of testing of sexual assault suspects for communicable diseases. Campusfudicial Rights.- to be a?'brded the same access to legal assistance as the accused to be afforded the same opportunity to have others present during any campus disciplinary proceeding that is allowed the accused to be noti?ed of the outcome of the sexual assault disciplinary proceeding against the accused. 32 Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 36 of 39 PageID: 74 Legal Rights: to have any allegation of sexual assault investigated and adjudicated by the appropriate criminal and civil authorities of the jurisdiction in which the sexual assault is reported to receive full and prompt cooperation and assistance of campus personnel in notifying the proper authorities to receive full, prompt, and victim?sensitive cooperation of campus personnel with regard to obtaining, securing and maintaining evidence, including a medical examination when it is necessary to preserve evidence of the assault. Campus Intervention Rights: to require campus personnel to take reasonable and necessary actions to prevent further unwanted contact of Victims by their alleged assailants to be noti?ed of the options for and provided assistance in changing academic and living situations if such changes are reasonably available. Statutory Mandates.- Each campus must guarantee that this Bill of Rights is implemented. It is the ob? ligation of the individual campus governing board to examine resources dedicated to services required and to make appropriate requests to increase or reallocate resources where necessary to ensure implementation Each campus shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that every student at that institution receives a copy of this document Nothing in this act or any Campus Assault Victim ?5 Bill ofRz'g/ats developed in accordance with the provisions of this act, shall be construed to preclude or in any way restrict any public or independent institution of higher education in the State from reporting any suspected crime or offense to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Rider University Resources Title IX Coordinator/Associate Vice President for Human Resources Robert Stoto Moore Library, Room 108; (609) 895?5683; rst0t0@rz'de7c edu Student Health Center Poyda ?oor, Lawrenceville campus; (609) 8966060 weekdays Taylor Hall, Princeton campus; (609) 721?7100, X8222 weekdays Counseling Center Zoerner House, Lawrenceville campus; (609) 896?5157 weekdays Williamson Hall, Princeton campus (609) 921-7100, X8275 Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non-Discrimination Poiicy September 2015 33 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 37 of 39 PageID: 75 Division of Student Affairs Anthony Campbell, Dean of Students, Bart Luecleke Center, Lawrenceville campus; (609) 896?5 1 01 Cindy Threatt, Associate Dean of Students, Scheide Student Center, Princeton campus; (609) 921?7100, X8263 Department of Public Safety West House, Lawrenceville campus; Bristol Chapel basement, Princeton campus Both campuses: (609) 896-5029 (non?emergency); (609) 896-7777 (emergency) Prevention Education Coordinator Susan Stahley Student Health Center; (609) 895?5721; edu; amp @rider. edu com/R UASAP Community Resources Womanspace 4 24?hour crisis center and information hotline 1860 Brunswick Ave, Lawrenceville NJ 08648; (609) 394-9000 Trained and sensitive counselors and advocates are available on the phone and in person to help the victim through the process and, at the Victim?s request, will accompany her or him to the hospital, police station, or Public Safety of?ce. All contact With Womanspace is con?dential. NICASA (NJ Coalition Against Sexual Assault) 3150 Brunswick Pike, Suite 230, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 (609) 651?4450; 24-hour statewide hotline: (800) 601?7200 2NDFLOOR wwamz??oon org; 1-888-222-2228 or text at (908) 280?0235 (4 - 8 pm) 2NDFLOOR is a con?dential service and hotline for New Jersey youth and young adults Lawrence Township Police Department 2207 Lawrenceville Rd, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 (609) 896-1111 or 911 in an emergency Princeton Police Department 1 Valley Rd, Princeton, 08540; (609) 9212100 or 911 in an emergency Central Jersey Legal Services (for legal, visa and immigration related assistance) 198 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608 (609) 695?6249 34 Rider University Anti?Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy September 2015 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 38 of 39 PageID: 76 Hospitals Capital Health, Regional (Helene Fuld) 750 Brunswick Ave, Trenton NJ 08638; (609) 8966000 Capital Health, 1 Capital Way, Pennington, NJ 08534; (609) 303?4000 Princeton Healthcare System, 1 Plainsboro Rd., Plainsboro, NJ 08536; 1?800-460?4776 Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital 1 Hamilton Health Place, Hamilton, 08690; (609) 584?6666 Other Resources Employee Assistance Program at Rider University provided by Business Health Services 1?800?765-3277; (Username Rider) Free, con?dential 24/7 telephone, online and face?to?face support for Rider employees regarding relationships, life changes and challenges, and other issues. FORGE AskFORGEGbergefarwaniorg; (414) 559?2123 FORGE provides support for transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. LIFEWRE 1?800?827?8840 or (425) 746?1940 (24/7 crisis lines) LIFEWRE addresses domestic violence issues in the LGBT community. Sexual Assault Support and Help for Americans Abroad sat/ma. org National Dating Abuse Hotline 1-866-331?9474; 1-866?331?8453 (TTY) National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) (7233); 1-800?787-3224 (TTY) NDVH provides support as well to the community at the/aotline. Rape, Abuse 85 Incest National Network (RAINN) Hotline minnorg; (4673) RAINN offers con?dential assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days/week. RAINN also offers assistance to men at 1 in 6.0rg at lamps/L7 i716 org provides support to men Who have had unwanted or abusive sexual experiences in childhood. If you are a victim of sexual, dating or domestic violence, get help as soon as possible. See pages 6-12 of this booklet to learn where and how to report the incident and where and how to seek medical and other assistance. Rider University Anti-Harassment and Non?Discrimination Policy I September 2015 35 ?Mum, mam? a m<2