A Cornell University fraternity member has lost a lawsuit challenging the disciplinary action imposed on him after an investigation into an alleged sexual assault at the Chi Phi fraternity house.
John Doe brought the case against Cornell in March, arguing that the university had failed to give him a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court of New York, the state’s trial court, rejected his petition on September 23 and upheld the university’s decision.
The case concerned an alleged incident on October 19, 2024, involving a woman identified as Jane Doe. John Doe said he went to a room at the fraternity house with another member after receiving a Snapchat message reading: “Free Pussy”.
In court documents, he said they went because they were unsure whether the message was a joke and because he wanted to collect a new vape. “By no means were we going there to get free pussy,” he said, adding that “Everybody in there seemed fine” when they arrived.
John Doe argued that he had been charged with sexual exploitation but was ultimately found responsible for attempted sexual exploitation. He said he had not known the lesser finding was a possible outcome and would have used a different approach at the disciplinary hearing if he had.
Jane Doe told the hearing that the two men had acted like “voyeurs” because “they were just looming”. She said she had been under a sheet at times and had no specific recollection of whether John Doe saw her naked when she stood up, or whether he snorted ketamine off her.
She also testified that going to the room after seeing the Snapchat message made him no better than the men who assaulted her. The alleged assault itself was not proven in the proceedings described in the case.
Cornell imposed a no-contact order between John Doe and Jane Doe. He was also required to complete a class addressing social media and sexual harassment and write a reflection paper.
His lawyer separately challenged the conduct of a hearing panel member, alleging that she drove for 45 minutes while a witness was giving evidence and was otherwise distracted. In an email to Cornell, the lawyer said she had “repeatedly demonstrated that she is engaged in other work during hearing sessions”.
Cornell argued that John Doe had received a fair investigation. The court found that the hearing had been properly conducted and that his rights had been fully protected.
