Staff Report
Judge William Bertlesman, senior district judge hearing the Jane Doe vs. Northern Kentucky University, et.al. lawsuit has ruled in favor of defendants Geoffrey Mearns, Kathleen Roberts and Ann James on their motion for “partial dismissal” of the complaints against them as individuals.
The dismissal order does not include former Police Chief Les Kachurek who is now represented by counsel separate from the others. He did not join in the university’s motion or file his own.
Jane Doe vs. Northern Kentucky University, et. al., involves a student who says she was raped in a campus dorm in 2013 and that the university’s own internal committee found she had very likely been assaulted by the male student identified. The suit involves her claim that the university did not protect her from further harassment by the perpetrator and did not follow their own procedures for doing so. Doe claims her attacker was never admonished or sanctioned for breaking the rules related to future contact with her.
The suit claims administrators were “indifferent” and perhaps “hostile” to her numerous pleas for help.
Bertlesman ruled to dismiss several counts of the suit, without oral argument. The ruling essentially narrows the scope to one count of an original eight. The one count remaining deals with a violation of Title IX.
The ruling covered “due process,” “First Amendment violations,” and “Breach of Contract” complaints brought by Doe.
On the due process issue, the Judge’s ruling says that though Doe alleges that “standards were violated by the individual defendants, the facts set forth to support such conclusion fall far short of meeting the constitutional standard. The FAC (First Amended Complaint) alleges that the University as an entity and the individual defendants failed to implement sanctions imposed on the accused student designed to keep him from encountering plaintiff on campus. No allegations are made that the student physically harassed or injured plaintiff during these encounters. Even when school officials fail to prevent verbal abuse, it has been held that the stringent standards for a substantive due process violation have not been met.”
On the First Amendment violation claimed by Doe: This complaint related to a demonstration on campus, after Jane Doe carried a mattress on her back to protest her treatment by the university. On the day of the demonstration in which other students joined in, the police chief, then Les Kachurek, sent an email to campus that Doe objected to and that President Mearns described as “well intended.”
The judge determined that none of the officials’ actions resulted in preventing Doe from exercising her First Amendment rights.
On Breach of Contact complaint: The judge said the NKU Student Code of Student Rights and Response does not constitute a contract, and the claim would not stand up anyway because “an officer of a corporation will not be individually bound when contracting as an agent of that corporation within the scope of his employment.”
On punitive damages: The judge dismissed all punitive damages against the four defendants cited in the motion.
The remaining count is a federal Title IX claim against NKU only, and not against any individuals.
“This has always been — first and foremost — a Title IX case,” said Jane Doe’s attorney, Kevin Murphy. “NKU has no explanation for their deliberate indifference to numerous young women who have been sexually assaulted on campus. We will look forward to the court and a jury hearing on these issues. Judge Bertlesman has already ruled that we can re-depose NKU Athletic Director Ken Bothof, and that will be our next step. They were sanctioned a week ago for trying to hide the truth.”
“We are gratified the court recognized that most of these claims were not supported by the facts and the law, and also that the court dismissed the individual claims made against current University employee,” said Amanda Nageleisen, University spokeswoman.
See official documents here:
NKU’s Motion/Memo for Partial Dismissal
Judge’s Order Granting Partial Dismissal
A bit confused by this ruling, but it is what it is. Where are the depositions of the former men’s basketball assistant coach Schappell and some of the others who have been deposed? They should not be hidden or sealed, right? They should shed more light on the hidden actions of the guilty.
Basically it says the individuals named in the suit are out of it. No personal liability on the part of the administrators. Yes, the depositions will all be public record, and we’ll eventually catch up to all of them as they are filed. Takes some time to get from deposition to transcript to filing . . .but we are keeping an eye on the process.
If Schappell did a deposition, is it about Jane Doe or the three basketball players? If it’s the sexual incident with the three basketball players, I want to know why John Brannen is being put under the microscope with Bothof. Brannen played two of those guys last year like nothing happened. He needs to answer for this.
I don’t agree with the Judge on this one. You let people like Mearns, James, Roberts, Bothof walk free, it just encourages their behavior of covering up sex crimes. What this means is Mearns & Co. are going to walk free, and us taxpayers are going to flip the bill for a big settlement we will never know about with details. This is why the public is always skeptical of the legal system, it never works, it just rewards the rich and they make inside deals with each other at our expense.
Excellent ruling by the judge in this case, makes me very happy to see Geoff Mearns exonerated from these false accusations. This shows the judge sees the Jane Doe attorney is out for money. It takes away three innocent people he can bring suit against. It’s a great feeling for NKU alumni like myself who support President Mearns to see he will no longer be dragged through this personally.
I am happy for President Mearns and Kathleen Roberts. They should have never been mentioned in this legal action. The attorney for Jane Doe has made this a complete mockery by going to the press with his gripes. No sooner does the Judge make his ruling, a story pops up tonight in the Cincinnati Enquirer with testimony from a former basketball coach and the other sexual assault that has nothing to do with this Jane Doe suit. For the record, I am in no way, shape, or form trying to defend Ken Bothof and his attempt to hide the incident. He should be punished for those actions. But to have former coaches coming out two years later and revealing these facts is disturbing. Why did they not say anything when this happened in 2015?
The simplest answer to your question is that they were subpoenaed to testify under oath as a result of this lawsuit — basically forced to tell the truth about what they know. Good question about why didn’t anyone come forward earlier. “Other” sexual assaults are relevant, Ms. Ellison, in terms of how the university deals with them, so there is a context. You have made a judgment that a specific person should be “punished,” but those matters are up to a court to decide, and that is partly what is at issue. You have a point of view which you have frequently expressed — and that is reflected in the judgments you make. Luckily the judge will hear all the evidence and, knowing the law, will make a judgment based on that and that alone.