AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — A University of Texas student claims that after he was cleared of sexual-assault allegations by a female student, the university president reversed the decision because of a new policy that allows people to retroactively withdraw consent for sex if they were intoxicated.
John Doe sued the University of Texas at Austin and its president, Dr. Gregory Fenves, in Austin federal court on Monday, alleging sex discrimination and due process violations.
Doe, an undergraduate student at the university, says that on April 16, 2016, a woman referred to in the lawsuit as Jane Roe went to his apartment near the UT campus following her sorority’s year-end formal party.
Doe asked Roe if she wanted to have sex, and she allegedly said yes.
“A few days later, Jane decided that she had been too intoxicated to make a good decision about whether or not she wanted to have sex with John that night,” the 38-page complaint states.
Roe then allegedly went to the university’s Title IX office and accused Doe of raping her.
“In doing so, she attempted to retroactively withdraw the consent she had freely given the night she and John were together,” he says.
Doe claims the Title IX investigation revealed these undisputed facts: Roe gave him affirmative verbal consent to have sex; she was never unconscious during sex; and no use of force or violence was involved.
UT’s investigation also found that Roe drank about five cups of sangria during a pre-formal boat party she attended with Doe on Lake Austin, according to the complaint, and she did not consume any more alcohol that night following the pre-formal party.
Roe and Doe arrived at her sorority formal two hours after the boat party and stayed there for an hour and a half, and then took a bus back to her sorority house and spent another hour there, investigators reportedly found.
Doe then asked Roe if she wanted to go back to his apartment and she said she did, the complaint states, so they walked to his apartment from the sorority house. They both believed they were intoxicated, the investigation found.
Doe and Roe then allegedly had consensual sex at his apartment, and she slept the rest of the night in his bedroom.
The ultimate issue is whether or not she was “incapacitated” while in Doe’s bedroom that night, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit says that investigators found there was sufficient evidence to believe Roe was incapacitated, and therefore reason to believe her consent was void.
But at Doe’s disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer expressed doubt as to Roe’s credibility regarding what she claimed to remember from the night, he says. The hearing officer also found inconsistencies in her testimony about consent.
A footnote in the complaint notes that one of Roe’s friends also doubted her credibility, allegedly telling investigators, “I think she might have been using being drunk as an excuse.”
“Ultimately, the hearing officer determined as to the incapacitation of Jane: ‘the complainant made rational decisions throughout much of the evening prior to and after the sexual intercourse. These facts do not support her claim that she was incapacitated according to the definition as provided by [the university investigator],’” the lawsuit states.