throbber
Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 1 of 173 PageID: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

`
`
`
`v. 
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, 
`
`Defendants. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Civil Case No. _____________ 

`SERGIO VERDÚ  

`

`

`THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
`PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, CHRISTOPHER L. EISGRUBER, DEBORAH A. PRENTICE,
`REGAN CROTTY, TONI MARLENE TURANO, LISA MICHELLE SCHREYER, MICHELE
`MINTER, CLAIRE GMACHL, CHERI BURGESS, LYNN WILLIAM ENQUIST, SUSAN
`TUFTS FISKE, CAROLINA MANGONE, HARVEY S. ROSEN, and IRENE V. SMALL,  

`

`

`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Plaintiff Sergio Verdú (“Plaintiff” or “Dr. Verdú”), by and through his attorneys Nesenoff
`
`& Miltenberg, LLP, as and for his complaint against Defendants The Trustees of Princeton
`
`University (“Princeton” or the “University”), the Board of Trustees of Princeton University,
`
`Christopher L. Eisgruber, Deborah A. Prentice, Regan Crotty, Toni Marlene Turano, Lisa Michelle
`
`Schreyer, Michele Minter, Claire Gmachl, Cheri Burgess, Lynn William Enquist, Susan Tufts
`
`Fiske, Carolina Mangone, Harvey S. Rosen and Irene Small (collectively the “Defendants”) alleges
`
`as follows: 
`
`THE NATURE OF THE ACTION 
`
`1.
`
`This action arises out of Princeton’s flawed and gender-biased Title IX
`
`proceedings, unremedied harassment and retaliation against Dr. Verdú and the subsequent
`
`unwarranted and flawed termination proceedings against him.
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 2 of 173 PageID: 2
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Verdú, formerly Princeton’s Eugene Higgins Professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering, who taught at the University for nearly 35 years, held his tenured position without
`
`incident until Spring 2017. Dr. Verdú has long been held in the highest esteem by students and
`
`colleagues alike, he has achieved the highest levels of success in his field and received numerous
`
`awards and accolades over the course of his career.
`
`3.
`
`Rather than make any effort to protect its highly esteemed faculty member,
`
`Princeton instead pursued the decimation of Dr. Verdú’s reputation and career, and violated his
`
`right to privacy over an extramarital affair that took place years earlier so that it could exact a
`
`harsher punishment against Dr. Verdú in the wake of the #MeToo movement.
`
`4.
`
`In Spring 2017, Paul Cuff (“Cuff”), an Assistant Professor who held a grudge
`
`against Dr. Verdú, and blamed him for Cuff’s failure to obtain tenure, reported allegations to then
`
`Dean of the Graduate School, Sanjeev Kulkarni (“Kulkarni”), that, years prior, Dr. Verdú had been
`
`involved in a consensual romantic relationship with a former female graduate student supervised
`
`by Cuff. A month earlier, the University heard the same allegation from a faculty member at
`
`Stanford University.
`
`5.
`
`Concerned about Cuff’s motives, and the lack of any complaint from the former
`
`graduate student, “E.S.”—who received her Ph.D. from Princeton over two years earlier and never
`
`made a report or complaint about Dr. Verdú—Kulkarni told Cuff that no investigation was
`
`warranted. At the time, Cuff said he was going to “watch out” for Dr. Verdú’s only female advisee,
`
`twenty-five-year-old graduate student Yeohee Im (“Ms. Im”).
`
`6.
`
`A short time later, Cuff notified the University that Dr. Verdú had allegedly acted
`
`inappropriately with Ms. Im, and, upon information and belief, encouraged Ms. Im to file a false
`
`charge of sexual harassment against Dr. Verdú with the University’s Title IX Office, stemming
`

`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 3 of 173 PageID: 3
`
`from two occasions on which Ms. Im and Dr. Verdú watched movies together at his home. Ms. Im
`
`also alleged—as had Cuff—that Dr. Verdú was rumored to have engaged in a consensual
`
`relationship with E.S.
`
`7.
`
`Having developed a close relationship with Cuff, Ms. Im willfully mischaracterized
`
`ordinary social interactions with Dr. Verdú, which she enthusiastically participated in, as sexual
`
`harassment. She claimed sexual harassment even though she admitted that Dr. Verdú acted
`
`professionally during the course of her graduate studies—both before and after the incidents she
`
`complained of.
`
`8.
`
`When complaining to the University, Ms. Im supplied only part of the story, and
`
`presented deliberately altered “evidence” in support of her claim of sexual harassment, including
`
`select portions of a secretly taped conversation with Dr. Verdú and excerpted emails. The full set
`
`of emails—produced by Dr. Verdú to the Title IX administrator—demonstrated that Ms. Im
`
`initiated a social relationship with Dr. Verdú and made attempts to foster a closer relationship with
`
`him. The Title IX panel, tasked with investigating Ms. Im’s allegations and determining
`
`responsibility, relied on the altered evidence, as opposed to the exculpatory evidence provided by
`
`Dr. Verdú, to erroneously find him responsible for sexual harassment.
`
`9.
`
`Though the panel members admitted that Ms. Im downplayed her efforts to foster
`
`a close relationship with Dr. Verdú, they failed to consider this in weighing the evidence. The
`
`panel also ignored that Cuff—not Ms. Im—was the original source of Ms. Im’s Title IX complaint
`
`and turned a blind eye to the simultaneous timing of the allegations about E.S., brought forward
`
`by Cuff and Ms. Im. The panel further ignored that, only months earlier, Ms. Im made a Title IX
`
`report against a male teaching assistant. All of these facts raised serious questions about Ms. Im’s
`
`credibility and her motives.
`

`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 4 of 173 PageID: 4
`
`10. When she reported the “sexual harassment” to the University, Ms. Im embellished
`
`her story in a manner that directly contradicted the evidence, including her own email
`
`communications with Dr. Verdú. Ms. Im’s story also continuously changed. The Title IX panel
`
`members ignored these contradictions. Their assessment of the case, and corresponding finding of
`
`responsibility against Dr. Verdú, revealed their sex bias because they treated Ms. Im—an adult—
`
`like a child in need of parental supervision. They also assumed that—because Dr. Verdú was male
`
`and Ms. Im female—Dr. Verdú intended a simple gesture like quickly cleaning a red wine stain
`
`off Ms. Im’s sweatshirt to be a sexual advance. They ignored Dr. Verdú’s consistent account of
`
`the events in question.
`
`11.
`
`The University ultimately found Dr. Verdú responsible for sexual harassment. As
`
`a result of this finding, he was placed on probation for one year, could not take a planned
`
`sabbatical, and was required to attend a mandatory 8-hour counseling program with an outside
`
`psychologist, whose services had been secured by Princeton exclusively to deal with student cases
`
`in the past.
`
`12.
`
`Dissatisfied with this sanction, Ms. Im embarked on a vicious, retaliatory campaign
`
`to destroy Dr. Verdú’s career and reputation by disclosing confidential Title IX records and altered
`
`recordings to the press, making unsubstantiated comments in an article published by the Huffington
`
`Post, encouraging social media posts against Dr. Verdú within the construct of the #MeToo
`
`movement, filing complaints with professional associations to which Dr. Verdú belonged, and
`
`publicly accusing him of sex crimes. Ms. Im succeeded in her destructive efforts.
`
`13.
`
`The November 9, 2017 Huffington Post article, published against the backdrop of
`
`the #MeToo movement, prompted a firestorm of negative publicity at Princeton, leading to the
`
`plastering of flyers across campus with Dr. Verdú’s photo, calls to the Princeton administration
`

`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 5 of 173 PageID: 5
`
`for his termination, exaggerated accusations and unsubstantiated rumors which Ms. Im and Cuff
`
`fueled by publishing editorials about Dr. Verdú in The Daily Princetonian newspaper.
`
`14.
`
`The University took no steps to quell the harassment of Dr. Verdú or prohibit Ms.
`
`Im from revealing confidential information obtained through the Title IX process. On the contrary,
`
`the University encouraged retaliation against Dr. Verdú by taking a position that supported Ms.
`
`Im. Princeton had already been subjected to a number of Office for Civil Rights investigations1
`
`and was embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal concerning professors in the University’s
`
`German Department and, in the weeks following the rebirth of the #MeToo movement, was, upon
`
`information and belief, more interested in preserving its reputation than preventing further harm
`
`to Dr. Verdú.
`
`15.
`
`All the while, Dr. Verdú was under a gag order, as the University warned him
`
`against disclosing any emails from and to Ms. Im or any other confidential information from the
`
`Title IX proceedings. Although Ms. Im was also subject to such confidentiality orders, the
`
`University chose not to enforce them against her. As a result, Dr. Verdú was unable to publicly
`
`defend himself against Ms. Im’s accusations and the unsubstantiated rumors that were the subject
`
`of campus discourse, including nearly a dozen articles in The Daily Princetonian attacking his
`
`character. Essentially, the University barred Dr. Verdú from coming to his own defense while
`
`simultaneously allowing Ms. Im to unabashedly and publicly attack Dr. Verdú.
`
`16.
`
`Not only did the University encourage retaliation against Dr. Verdú, its
`
`administration opened a second investigation into the allegations originally lodged by Ms. Im and
`
`Cuff concerning a consensual relationship between Dr. Verdú and E.S.
`
`
`1 Indeed, its handling of sexual misconduct allegations received a score of 5/20 (letter grade D) from the Foundation
`for Individual Rights in Education.
`

`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 6 of 173 PageID: 6
`
`17. Ms. Im contacted E.S. on a number of occasions, threatened her and solicited her
`
`to file a university complaint against Dr. Verdú, because she was dissatisfied with the fact that he
`
`was not fired as a result of her, and Cuff’s, sexual harassment allegation. Ms. Im’s threats were
`
`unsuccessful. E.S. even met with Princeton’s Title IX administrators to inform them that Dr. Verdú
`
`had not engaged in any sexual misconduct with respect to her. Regardless, Princeton administrators
`
`attempted to coerce E.S. into admitting that Dr. Verdú had an improper relationship with her that
`
`violated University policies. This was simply not the case.
`
`18.
`
`Despite the lack of any evidence that sexual misconduct occurred with respect to
`
`E.S. the University pressed on, seeking to bolster its reputation for failing to protect female
`
`students from sexual harassment by faculty members. Princeton also sought to correct its perceived
`
`laxity in sanctioning Dr. Verdú in Ms. Im’s Title IX proceeding by resurrecting the allegations
`
`against him concerning E.S.—and opening an unwarranted investigation—at Ms. Im’s insistence.
`
`19.
`
`Dr. Verdú was punished for his efforts to protect E.S.’s and his right to privacy and
`
`for railing against the University’s unwarranted and relentless invasion of his privacy in the face
`
`of Ms. Im’s and Cuff’s drummed up allegations. E.S. and Dr. Verdú engaged in an extramarital
`
`affair, years earlier, which did not violate University policy. Princeton used the affair as a
`
`mechanism for terminating Dr. Verdú, in an effort to appease Ms. Im—and her angry supporters
`
`who took the Huffington Post article at face value—who would not rest until Dr. Verdú was fired.
`
`20.
`
`Princeton administrators went so far as to keep Ms. Im informed about the status of
`
`the E.S. investigation even though she was not a proper complainant or participant in the alleged
`
`events. In contrast, the administrators acted hostile, menacing and coercive towards E.S., treating
`
`her more like a criminal than an alumna. There was no policy in place that even permitted post hoc
`
`investigations concerning students who had graduated, let alone complaints lodged by third parties.
`

`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 7 of 173 PageID: 7
`
`21.
`
`Princeton breached University protocol when conducting the investigation, hiring
`
`a high-profile law firm to provide an investigator rather than the Dean of the Faculty. Though the
`
`initial investigation turned up insufficient evidence, the Provost urged Dr. Verdú to confess in
`
`order to receive a lesser punishment. Her recommendations for discipline were rife with judgment
`
`about the propriety of Dr. Verdú, an older man, being involved in a consensual relationship with a
`
`younger woman.
`
`22.
`
`Dissatisfied with Dr. Verdú’s refusal to admit to any wrongdoing, the President of
`
`the University ordered a search of Dr. Verdú’s university emails for communications with E.S.,
`
`including a timeframe well beyond the date upon which E.S.’s Ph.D. was conferred. Ultimately,
`
`the investigators relied on flimsy evidence, including communications which post-dated E.S.’s
`
`departure from Princeton, to conclude that Dr. Verdú violated Princeton’s policy on Consensual
`
`Relations with Students. Because Dr. Verdú defended himself, and E.S., against Princeton’s
`
`unwarranted invasion of privacy, the University President also found him responsible for violating
`
`University policies involving dishonesty.
`
`23.
`
`In assessing and adjudicating the false allegations against Dr. Verdú, the University
`
`deprived him of a fair and impartial process. Princeton had no regard for the heightened protections
`
`that were warranted in the case of deciding allegations against a tenured professor and the
`
`significant interest he had in his professorship.
`
`24.
`
`Throughout both investigations, Princeton officials withheld information from Dr.
`
`Verdú, including the identities of key witnesses and the individuals who made certain allegations,
`
`as well as the fact that Ms. Im and Cuff were behind the E.S. allegations. Dr. Verdú had no right
`
`to cross-examine his accusers or question witnesses. He had no right to be represented by counsel
`
`during any appearances, nor did he receive a proper hearing.
`

`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 8 of 173 PageID: 8
`
`25.
`
`Both the outcome of the Title IX investigation and the decision to terminate Dr.
`
`Verdú resulted from an abuse of power and were the product of sex discrimination.
`
`26.
`
`During the relevant timeframe, Princeton was under constant, extreme pressure to
`
`repair its tarnished reputation, which resulted from: i) numerous OCR investigations; ii) public
`
`outcry over the alleged sexual harassment of a number of female students in the German
`
`Department; iii) Ms. Im’s and Cuff’s public vilification of the Provost for failing to terminate Dr.
`
`Verdú; and iv) the momentum of the #MeToo movement.
`
`27.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ misconduct in violating Princeton’s policies, failing to
`
`provide Dr. Verdú with a fundamentally fair process in either investigation, assisting Ms. Im’s
`
`retaliatory campaign against Dr. Verdú and engaging in sex discrimination, Dr. Verdú has, among
`
`other things, suffered irreparable harm to his career and reputation, been cut off from conducting
`
`research in his field, and is unemployable. Dr. Verdú has also suffered physical illness and
`
`emotional distress as a result of the discriminatory and hostile environment created by Ms. Im’s
`
`retaliatory campaign.
`
`28.
`
`As fully set forth below, Dr. Verdú alleges claims against Defendants for: (i)
`
`violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; (ii) violations of Title VII of the
`
`Civil Rights Act of 1964; (iii) violations of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination; (iii) breach
`
`of contract; (iv) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (v) wrongful
`
`discipline; (vi) gross negligence; (vii) negligence; and (viii) respondeat superior.
`
`THE PARTIES 
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Sergio Verdú is a natural person and a resident of New Jersey.
`

`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 9 of 173 PageID: 9
`
`30.
`
`Defendant The Trustees of Princeton University (“Princeton” or the “University”)
`
`is an educational corporation incorporated in the State of New Jersey which operates Princeton
`
`University, a private university located in Princeton, New Jersey.
`
`31.
`
`The Board of Trustees of Princeton University (“The “Board of Trustees”) is the
`
`University’s governing body, responsible for adopting Rules and Procedures of the Faculty which
`
`govern faculty disciplinary proceedings and responsible for determining whether to dismiss
`
`tenured faculty as an outcome of said disciplinary proceedings. The Board of Trustees made the
`
`determination to dismiss Plaintiff from his position as a tenured member of Princeton’s faculty.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Christopher L. Eisgruber (“Eisgruber”) is a natural person and, upon
`
`information and belief. a resident of New Jersey. Eisgruber is the President of Princeton
`
`University. Eisgruber recommended that the Board of Trustees dismiss Dr. Verdú.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant Deborah A. Prentice (“Prentice”) is a natural person and, upon
`
`information and belief, a resident of New Jersey. Prentice is the Provost of Princeton University.
`
`Prentice issued the sanction at the conclusion of the University’s Title IX investigation into Ms.
`
`Im’s sexual harassment allegations against Plaintiff. She also recommended disciplinary measures
`
`with respect to the E.S. allegations brought forward by Ms. Im.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant Regan Crotty (“Crotty”) is a natural person and, upon information and
`
`belief, a resident of New Jersey. Crotty is the Director of Gender Equity and Title IX
`
`Administration at Princeton University. Among other things, Crotty served on the Title IX panel
`
`which investigated Ms. Im’s allegations against Dr. Verdú.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant Toni Marlene Turano (“Turano”), is a natural person and, upon
`
`information and belief, a resident of New Jersey. Turano is the Deputy Dean of the Faculty at
`

`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 10 of 173 PageID: 10
`
`Princeton University. Among other things, Turano served on the Title IX panel which investigated
`
`Ms. Im’s allegations against Dr. Verdú.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant Lisa Michelle Schreyer (“Schreyer”) is a natural person and, upon
`
`information and belief, a resident of New Jersey. Schreyer is the Associate Dean of the Graduate
`
`School at Princeton University. Schreyer served on the Title IX panel which investigated Ms. Im’s
`
`allegations against Dr. Verdú.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant Michele Minter (“Minter”) is a natural person and, upon information and
`
`belief, a resident of New Jersey. Minter is the Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity
`
`at Princeton University. Among other things, Ms. Minter assisted the University in publicly
`
`supporting Ms. Im, and retaliating against Dr. Verdú, through statements made to the campus
`
`newspaper.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant Claire Gmachl (“Gmachl”) is a natural person and, upon information
`
`and belief, a resident of New Jersey. Gmachl was the Acting Chair of the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering at Princeton University for the 2017-2018 academic year and is currently, upon
`
`information and belief, the Associate Chair of the Department of Electrical Engineering at
`
`Princeton University. Ms. Gmachl retaliated against Dr. Verdú when he asked for assistance during
`
`Ms. Im’s negative publicity campaign and told her that he was being subjected to a hostile
`
`environment.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant Cheri Burgess (“Burgess”) is a natural person and, upon information and
`
`belief, a resident of New Jersey. Burgess is the Director for Institutional Equity and EEO at
`
`Princeton and is also an attorney. In Fall 2017, Burgess conducted an unauthorized, post-hoc
`
`investigation of Ms. Im’s allegation that Plaintiff and E.S. were involved in a romantic relationship
`
`in Summer 2015.
`

`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 11 of 173 PageID: 11
`
`40.
`
`Defendant Lynn William Enquist (“Enquist”) is a natural person and, upon
`
`information and belief, a resident of New Jersey. Enquist is the Henry L. Hillman Professor of
`
`Molecular Biology at Princeton University and was a member of the Committee on Conference
`
`and Faculty Appeal that denied Dr. Verdú’s Title IX appeal and his appeal of Eisgruber’s
`
`recommendation of dismissal.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant Susan Tufts Fiske (“Fiske”) is a natural person and, upon information
`
`and belief, a resident of New Jersey. Fiske is a Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public
`
`Affairs at Princeton University. Fiske was a member of the Committee on Conference and Faculty
`
`Appeal that denied Dr. Verdú’s appeal of Eisgruber’s recommendation of dismissal.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant Carolina Mangone (“Mangone”) is a natural person and, upon
`
`information and belief, a resident of New Jersey. Mangone is an Assistant Professor of
`
`Renaissance and Baroque Art at Princeton University. Mangone was a member of the Committee
`
`on Conference and Faculty Appeal that denied Dr. Verdú’s Title IX appeal and his appeal of
`
`Eisgruber’s recommendation of dismissal.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant Harvey S. Rosen (“Rosen”) is a natural person and, upon information
`
`and belief, a resident of New Jersey. Rosen is the John L. Weinberg Professor of Economics and
`
`Business Policy at Princeton University. Rosen was a member of the Committee on Conference
`
`and Faculty Appeal that denied Dr. Verdú’s Title IX appeal and his appeal of Eisgruber’s
`
`recommendation of dismissal.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant Irene V. Small (“Small”) is a natural person and, upon information and
`
`belief, a resident of New Jersey. Small is an Assistant Professor of Contemporary Art and Criticism
`
`at Princeton University. Small was a member of the Committee on Conference and Faculty Appeal
`

`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 12 of 173 PageID: 12
`
`that denied Dr. Verdú’s Title IX appeal and his appeal of Eisgruber’s recommendation of
`
`dismissal.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
`
`45.
`
`This Court has federal question and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because: (i) the claims arise under statutes of the United States; and
`
`(ii) the state law claims are so closely related to the federal law claims as to form the same case or
`
`controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`46.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Princeton because Princeton is
`
`located within and conducts business in this judicial district.
`
`47.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Eisgruber, Prentice, Crotty,
`
`Turano, Schreyer, Minter, Gmachl, Enquist, Fiske, Mangone, Rosen and Small because, upon
`
`information and belief, they are residents of New Jersey. These Defendants are also employed by
`
`Princeton University in New Jersey and committed acts injurious to Plaintiff in New Jersey.
`
`48. Venue for this action properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
`
`because the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district, and
`
`witnesses and evidence relevant hereto are located within this judicial district.
`
`FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS 
`
`I.
`
`Dr. Verdú’s Background
`
`49.
`
`Dr. Verdú grew up in Barcelona, Spain. In 1980 he came to the United States to
`
`pursue his Ph.D. and, in 1984, he became the youngest faculty member at Princeton at that time.
`
`Dr. Verdú was employed by Princeton, including as a tenured professor since 1989, for the next
`
`34 years.
`

`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 13 of 173 PageID: 13
`
`50. Until June 2017, or over a span of 33 years, Dr. Verdú had an unblemished
`
`disciplinary record.
`
`51. Over the years, Dr. Verdú received recognition for his teaching and research,
`
`including as the youngest recipient ever of the Claude Shannon Award, the top distinction in Dr.
`
`Verdú’s field of study, information theory. In recognition of his research achievements, Dr. Verdú
`
`was also elected to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.
`
`52. Prior to his termination, and in the wake of a negative publicity campaign sparked
`
`by one of his former graduate students, as fully described below, Dr. Verdú received continuing
`
`support from former and current students and colleagues, men and women alike, who provided
`
`testimonials to Princeton in support of his character. Their support continues to the present day.
`
`53. Despite these words of support, Princeton caved in to pressure surrounding the
`
`#MeToo movement and criticism that it failed to protect its female students from sexual
`
`harassment, stripping Dr. Verdú of his tenured position after conducting an unauthorized,
`
`unwarranted and biased investigation, the primary purpose of which was to find a reason to
`
`terminate him.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Princeton Under Constant Investigation By the U.S. Department of
`Education’s Office For Civil Rights
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and Related Guidance
`
`54.
`
`On April 4, 2011, the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) of the United States
`
`Department of Education (“DE”) issued a guidance letter to colleges and universities in the United
`
`States in receipt of federal funding which became widely known as the “Dear Colleague Letter”
`
`(the “2011 DCL”). The 2011 DCL directed schools to “take immediate action to eliminate [sexual]
`
`harassment, prevent its recurrence and address its effects.” Id. at p. 4.
`

`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 14 of 173 PageID: 14
`
`55. The 2011 DCL responded, in part, to a special investigative report published by
`
`National Public Radio and the Center for Public Integrity, which proclaimed a campus rape
`
`epidemic and criticized the OCR for its lax response to what the report characterized as a social
`
`problem of critical importance.2 The report described in detail the obstacles faced by sexual assault
`
`victims in obtaining redress though college disciplinary proceedings and how victims who did
`
`engage in the college disciplinary process suffered additional trauma as a result. Much of the report
`
`focused on underreporting, re-traumatization of victims, rape myth adherence on college campuses
`
`(e.g. that women invite rape, that rapes are just drunk hook-ups, and that women routinely lie), and
`
`men’s cultural adherence to the sex aggressor role.
`
`56. The 2011 DCL, further, relied on faulty statistics in sounding a “call to action” for
`
`campuses nationwide—that “about 1 in 5 women are victims of completed or attempted sexual
`
`assault while in college.” 2011 DCL, at p. 2. The researchers behind this study subsequently
`
`invalidated that statistic as a misrepresentation of the conclusions of the study and warned that it
`
`was “inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number as a baseline…when discussing our country’s problem
`
`with rape and sexual assault.” http://time.com/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-
`
`setting-record-straight/. Relying on these faulty numbers, the 2011 DCL minimized due process
`
`protections for the accused by, among other things, eschewing any presumption of innocence,
`
`mandating the use of a preponderance of the evidence standard, limiting cross-examination, and
`
`forbidding certain forms of alternative dispute resolution.3
`
`
`2 See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124001493. 
`3 On September 22, 2017, the OCR withdrew the April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and “Questions and Answers on
`Title IX and Sexual Violence,” dated April 29, 2014 on the ground that the April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter placed
`“improper pressure upon universities” which resulted in the establishment of procedures for resolving sexual
`misconduct allegations that lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process [and] are overwhelmingly stack
`ed against the accused.” See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf.

`

`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 15 of 173 PageID: 15
`
`57. Recent District Court decisions have held that the preponderance of the evidence
`
`standard is too low a burden of proof for evaluating university Title IX complaints given the
`
`significant disciplinary consequences that can result therefrom. Lee v. Univ. of N. Mexico, Case
`
`No. 1:17-cv-01239-JB-LF (Sept. 20, 2018) (Doc. No. 36), at p. 3 (“the Court concludes that
`
`preponderance of the evidence is not the proper standard for disciplinary investigations”). See Doe
`
`v. DiStefano, 2018 WL 2096347, at *6 (May 7, 2018) (“‘[T]here is a fair question whether
`
`preponderance of the evidence is the proper standard for disciplinary investigations.’”).
`
`58. Courts have also recently held that, in cases where credibility is at stake, precluding
`
`cross-examination in university sexual misconduct proceedings casts doubt on the accuracy of the
`
`outcome of those proceedings and deprives respondents of the right to a fundamentally fair
`
`process. Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 585-586 (6th Cir. 2018); Lee v. Univ. of N. Mexico, Case No.
`
`1:17-cv-01239-JB-LF (D.N.M. Sept. 20, 2018) (Doc. No. 36), at p. 3; Doe v. Allee, 2019 WL
`
`101616 (Cal. Ct. App., Jan 4, 2019). As one court noted, Title IX “enforcement officials often
`
`must make a credibility judgment between a male and female, which doubles the possibility of
`
`gender-specific stereotypes influencing the investigation” and may be “the most likely
`
`circumstances in which gender bias, explicit or implicit, will have an effect.” Doe v. CU Boulder,
`
`255 F. Supp. 3d 1064,1076, 1079 (D. Colo. 2017).
`
`59. Despite its purported purpose as a mere guidance letter, the DE treated the DCL as
`
`a binding regulation and pressured colleges and universities to aggressively pursue sexual
`
`misconduct investigations or face the loss of federal funding.
`
`60.
`
`On April 29, 2014, OCR issued additional directives to colleges and universities in
`
`the form of a guidance document titled Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence
`
`(“2014 Q&A”) which was aimed at addressing campus sexual misconduct policies, including the
`

`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page 16 of 173 PageID: 16
`
`procedures colleges and universities “must” employ “to prevent sexual violence and resolve
`
`complaints” and the elements that “should be included in a school’s procedures for responding to
`
`complaints of sexual violence.” 2014 Q&A, at p. 12. The 2014 Q&A advised schools to adopt a
`
`trauma informed approach, advising, for example, that hearings should be “conducted in a manner
`
`that does not inflict additional trauma on the complainant.” Id. at p. 31.
`
`61. With respect to the role of Title IX Coordinators, the 2014 Q&A advised that they
`
`should not have a conflict of interest, such as by also acting as members of a hearing panel
`
`“[b]ecause some complaints may raise issues as to whether or how well the school has met its Title
`
`IX obligations.” 2014 Q&A at p. 12.
`
`62.
`
`In April 2014, the White House issued a report entitled “Not Alone”, which—like
`
`the April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter—relied upon the faulty “1 in 5” statistic and focused on
`
`protecting women from sexual assault, “engaging men” and “if you see it happening, help her,
`
`don’t blame her, speak up.” Id. at p. 2.
`
`63. The report included a warning that if OCR found that a Title IX violation occurred,
`
`the “school risk[ed] losing federal funds” and that the DOJ shared authority with OCR for
`
`enforcing Title IX and may initiate an investigation or compliance review of schools. Further, if a
`
`voluntary resolution could not be reached, the DOJ could initiate litigation. The report contained
`
`no recommendation with respect to ensuring that the investigation and adjudication of sexual
`
`misconduct complaints be fair and impartial or that any resources be provided to males accused of
`
`sexual misconduct.
`
`64. On May 1, 2014, the DE issued a press release naming Princeton as one of the initial
`
`55 colleges and universities being investigated for violating Title IX. The investigation was
`

`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-12484-FLW-ZNQ Document 1 Filed 05/13/19 Page

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket