Male Student’s Title IX Lawsuit Against Princeton Can Proceed, says Appeals Court

A male Princeton student suspended for allegedly choking two female students may bring gender bias claims against the University, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

In reviving the suspended student’s Title IX lawsuit against Princeton, the appeals court found the University disciplinary committee’s investigation of the incidents may have deprived him of a fair disciplinary process.

Writing for the court in a ruling released July 21, Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause said many universities have struggled to find the proper balance “in their worthy quest to erase the scourge of assault, particularly sexual assault from their campuses,” adding that “Princeton University is among them.”

The case involved the claims of two female students, identified as “Sarah Smith” and “Jane Roe,” that the male student, “John Doe,” had allegedly choked them during separate arguments at or on the way to campus parties.

A few weeks after classes began in the fall of 2023, Doe, a sophomore at the time, was notified that a University investigator wanted to interview him about “unspecified allegations that he had engaged in misconduct,” according to the complaint. 

The court pointed, though, to the investigator’s “inconsistent manner of seeking out evidence.” It noted, for instance, that Princeton interviewed Doe only once about those incidents and he denied them. However, the investigator interviewed Doe’s accusers three times each, allegedly giving them opportunities to respond to Doe’s statements, according to the complaint. 

The appeals court also said the disciplinary committee failed to acknowledge that the women gave shifting descriptions of the alleged assaults. And it found that witnesses supporting Doe’s account went “largely unheard,” including a male student at another university who was prepared to testify that one of Doe’s accusers had made false choking accusations against that student.

At Doe’s disciplinary hearing, his complaint alleged, Elizabeth Harman, a philosophy professor and committee member, did not ask Smith any questions and fell asleep during her testimony. The lawsuit included a photo; Harman told the National Review in 2024 that it shows her awake and looking down while taking notes.

Princeton found Doe responsible and suspended him for two years. A lower court  dismissed Doe’s Title IX lawsuit. But in reversing, the Third Circuit found Doe plausibly alleged that Princeton was under pressure to “crack down” on male respondents in enforcing its disciplinary policies against him. 

The Philadelphia-based appeals court added that the types of irregularities in the case could support an inference of sex discrimination.

In a statement to PAW, University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill said, “The Third Circuit made clear it was not ruling on the merits since there was no evidence for it to consider. ... The Third Circuit further noted, ‘[d]iscovery might not bear out [Doe’s] account. Our task at this stage is merely to determine whether, assuming everything [plaintiff] alleges is true, he has stated a claim for relief.”

Morrill added that the parties will now litigate the case in the district court where “the University intends to defend the matter vigorously.”

Doe’s attorney, Chris Muha, told PAW via email, “We hope to move forward as quickly as possible for our client. We are very pleased with the unanimous decision.”

In a separate 2022 case, the Third Circuit allowed another male student’s Title IX lawsuit to move forward against Princeton, finding “disparate treatment and procedural irregularities” in a campus disciplinary process involving accusations of relationship violence.