JOHN DOE v. OBERLIN COLLEGE - Articles

All Content

JOHN DOE v. OBERLIN COLLEGE

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jun 29, 2020

Head Comment: GILMAN delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Christopher C. Muha, KAISERDILLON PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Aaron M. Herzig, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Christopher C. Muha, KAISERDILLON PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. David H. Wallace, Cary M. Snyder, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): GILMAN, KETHLEDGE, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Any number of federal constitutional and statutory provisions reflect the proposition that, in this country, we determine guilt or innocence individually—rather than collectively, based on one’s identification with some demographic group. That principle has not always been perfectly realized in our Nation’s history, but as judges it is one that we take an oath to enforce. Here, the relevant statute is Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which bars universities that receive federal funds from discriminating against students based on their sex. John Doe argues that his complaint in this case adequately stated a claim that Oberlin College did precisely that when it determined his responsibility on a sexual-assault allegation. We agree, and reverse the district court’s decision to the contrary.

Attachments: