HUNTINGTON – A Marshall University student who was sexually assaulted by her ex-boyfriend blames failures by the school’s Title IX office.
The plaintiff, identified only as Jane Roe, filed her complaint in federal court against the Marshall University Board of Governors.
According to the complaint, Roe was sexually assaulted by an ex-boyfriend identified only as John Doe during a Marshall University football watch party on September 3. She says their relationship had ended in August.
Roe says Doe began acting aggressively toward her at the watch party, threatened her, grabbed her cell phone, demanded her password, read her text messages and then sexually assaulted her. She says he tried to pull down her pants, put his hands around her neck, choked her and, when she wouldn’t kiss him, bit her lip until it bled profusely.
She says she called 911 and reported the assault to the Huntington Police Department, and Doe was arrested and was charged with a crime.
Huntington PD sent its report of the incident the same day to Marshall University, which referred the matter to both the Title IX Office and the Office of Student Conduct, according to the complaint. Four days later, Roe says she received an email from Michaela Arthur, assistant director of student conduct, with the subject line “Witness Meeting” to set up a Microsoft Teams meeting for her and Arthur to discuss the incident.
During the meeting, Roe says she explained the circumstances of the assault she suffered.
“On no occasion during those meetings did Arthur inform plaintiff she was investigating anything other than Doe’s assault of plaintiff,” the complaint states. “Had plaintiff known that Arthur and Marshall University were trying to penalize her rather than gain information about the assault she suffered, she would not have talked with Arthur.
“On no occasion during those meetings did Arthur inform plaintiff that she was, would or could be disciplined as a result of reporting her sexual assault. On no occasion during those meetings did Arthur inform plaintiff that she was entitled to counsel or an advisor.”
On October 20, Roe received another email from Arthur to set up a Teams meeting for October 24. During that meeting, Arthur told the plaintiff she was being charged with violating Marshall’s policy against underage drinking.
She says Arthur told her she could accept a “voluntary resolution” resulting in probation as long as she agreed to waive her rights to further proceedings. She says Arthur told her most students chose the voluntary resolution and pressured her to do the same, and Roe says she did that.
According to Marshall’s student conduct procedures, probation results in a “social obligation hold” on the student’s record which is maintained for seven years.
Roe says if she should seek to apply to other education programs in the future, she likely will be forced to disclose her probation.
“Not only has Marshall penalized plaintiff for opening up about the sexual assault she experienced at the hands of another student, Marshall then declined to open a Title IX investigation against her attacker,” the complaint states. “Despite receiving the police report about the sexual assault, Marshall’s Title IX Coordinator Debra Hart failed to conduct the assessment set forth in Marshall University’s Title IX Policy.”
She says Hart also failed to assess Roe’s safety and well-being, explain resources available to her, explain her right to seek informal or formal resolution of a Title IX complaint and reach out to Roe to assess the extent of Doe’s sexual harassment and violence against her.
“Marshall has taken the position that the Title IX Office did not have jurisdiction over the incident solely because it occurred off campus,” the complaint states.
Roe says Doe still is a Marshall student and that she suffered severe emotional distress because of the school’s actions and omissions.
She accuses Marshall University of violating Title IX sex discrimination through deliberate indifference. She says she has suffered and will suffer mental and emotional injuries, including embarrassment, anxiety, depression, stress, humiliation and fear, reputational harm, loss of educational opportunities and benefits, damage to her pursuit of higher education and future financial damage.
Roe seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney fees, court costs, pre- and post-judgment interests and other relief.
In its answer, the Board of Governors denies the allegations and seeks to have the case dismissed.
Roe is being represented by Ryan McCune Donovan, J. Zak Ritchie and Casey E. Waldeck of Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie in Charleston. The BOG is being represented by Eric D. Salyers and Perry W. Oxley of Oxley Rich Sammons in Huntington. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Robert C. “Chuck” Chambers.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 3:22-cv-00532