`
`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