by A Massachusetts student who was reprimanded for sexual misconduct, such as discussing sex and seeking coworkers for hugs, was found to have violated his First Amendment rights by a federal court.
According to court filings, the 37-year-old Indian national student, who went unnamed by John Doe, is a resident advisor in a residence on campus while obtaining a doctorate at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
Four of Doe’s coworkers accused him of sexual misconduct in 2023. Judge Lara Montecalvo of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the university was accountable for sexual misconduct following an investigation.
The judge stated that the student was placed on probation and prohibited from entering any residence hall or residing in housing provided by the university.
Nevertheless, the judge overturned a lower court’s ruling and concluded that there was insufficient proof to support a restriction because his behavior did not interfere with classwork. Additionally, the judge concluded that his actions do not constitute a widespread pattern.
Ilya Feoktistov, a civil rights attorney who represented Doe, stated that there was no sexual misconduct because nothing there could be construed as sexual misconduct because everything was protected by the First Amendment.
Montecalvo concurred with the lower court, although, that UMass was entitled to qualified immunity, which shields the public university from having to pay damages.
More over $2 million was sought in Doe’s initial 2023 lawsuit, but Feoktistov stated that clearing his identity was the primary objective.
What did Doe do?
According to the ruling, a university official spoke with other students who were suggested to her throughout the investigation after the first four ladies voiced their concerns to their supervisor. According to the ruling, he was charged with asking for unwanted hugs, repositioning a woman’s feet on exercise equipment, and discussing sexual matters at work.
According to the decision, one lady said that while she and Doe were cooking and talking about Jehovah’s Witnesses and religious preaching, Doe remarked, “Oh (woman’s name), do you want me to shove my penis in your face?”
He explained to the woman at the time and to investigators afterwards that he intended to draw a comparison between Jehovah’s Witness behavior and unwelcome sexual activity. Although the university acknowledged this, they still thought the remark was offensive.
In another instance, he told a colleague that he would have sex while eating provided the food was nice. Although Doe admitted that he could have used the term “sex,” he said that he might have been alluding to the hashtag “food porn.”
According to the decision, another coworker claimed that Doe had confided in her about how he would be alone forever.
The woman claimed that Doe said, “I just want someone to cuddle with, not someone to have sex with.” I’ll just jerk off and go to bed since I’ll be by myself.
Additionally, Doe was charged with moving her feet on an exercise machine in his dorm room using his hands and feet. According to the university’s report submitted to the district court, he also allegedly grabbed her thigh without getting her permission.
According to the appeals ruling, the same woman said that Doe would reach out and embrace her on an indeterminate number of occasions.
Incidents were simply awkward and uncomfortable, judge writes
In particular, Montecalvo disagreed that his actions significantly disrupted the university RA system, arguing that UMass erred in labeling these incidents as sexual misbehavior.
The judge wrote that both parties pursued the issue as a student discipline case rather than an employer-employee one.
According to Montecalvo, the complainant RAs undoubtedly considered Doe’s several statements offensive enough that they felt uneasy and wanted to avoid spending time with him alone. However, the record does not imply that any complainant interpreted Doe’s actions as a sexual approach, and the complainants characterized Doe’s remarks and behavior as simply unpleasant and uncomfortable.
The women who accused his client of sexual assault were spotted drinking in the hostel hallways the night before they all submitted complaints, according to Feoktistov’s interview allegations.
The woman who appeared before the university panel regarding the foodporn statement acknowledged to university officials that she had consumed alcohol the night before the accusations were made, according to a university report submitted to the district court. According to the district court ruling that sided with the university last year, she did not, however, tell Doe and another RA that she was spying on them.
He remarked that because the fact pattern is precisely the same, everybody who reads this novel should also read The Crucible. When a bunch of immature, young people are found doing something they shouldn’t have done, they start a witch hunt.
Feoktistov claimed that because the incident had nothing to do with the First Amendment issue, it was left out of the complaint.
Regarding ongoing lawsuit, a UMass Lowell representative declined to comment.
Molly Farrar works for Boston.com as a general assignment reporter, covering topics such as politics, crime, and education.
Sign up for the Today newsletter
Receive all the information you require to begin your day, given directly to your inbox each morning.
