Marilyn Odendahl for www.theindianalawyer.com

Finding dismissal was premature, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a lawsuit against Purdue University brought by a male student accused of sexual assault.

The male student, using the pseudonym John Doe, claimed Purdue violated his rights under the 14^thAmendment and Title IX after the school conducted a “constitutionally flawed” investigation into the allegations brought by his former girlfriend. He also claimed the university discriminated against him on the basis of sex.

At the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Doe’s lawsuit was dismissed. The magistrate judge ruled Doe’s due process rights were not violated because he was not deprived of his liberty or property. In addition, the district court dismissed Doe’s Title IX claims on the grounds that he did not show Purdue discriminated because he is a male.

However, the 7^th Circuit reversed, finding the male student adequately alleged violations of both the 14^thAmendment and Title IX. It remanded the case, John Doe v. Purdue University, et al., 17-3565, to the Northern Indiana District Court for further proceedings.

The court found Doe had adequately alleged that Purdue deprived him of a liberty interest. Citing Paul V. Davis and Hinkle v. White, the appellate panel held that Doe’s status changed after Purdue determined that he was guilty of a sexual offense. He was subsequently suspended for one year, which impacted him beyond the classroom.

“And it was this official determination of guilt, not the proceeding charges or any accompanying rumors, that allegedly deprived John of occupational liberty,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court. “It caused his expulsion from the Navy ROTC program (with the accompanying loss of scholarship) and foreclosed the possibility of his reenrollment in it.”

Noting the process to determine Doe’s guilt included the university crediting victim’s account of the alleged assault with hearing from her directly, the appellate court ruled Doe should be able to make his Title IX arguments.

“Taken together, John’s allegations raise a plausible inference that he was denied an educational benefit on the basis of his sex,” Barrett wrote. “To be sure, John may face problems of proof, and the factfinder might not buy the inferences that he’s selling. But his claim should have made it past the pleading stage.”

The Purdue case is one of many in which university students have sued after determinations against them arising for allegations of sexual misconduct. https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/48402-students-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-suing-colleges-universities Other Indiana universities facing similar litigation include Ball State, Butler, DePauw, Indiana and Notre Dame.

IL for www.theindianalawyer.com

Three attorneys licensed to practice law in the Hoosier state were suspended late Friday by the Indiana Supreme Court, including one who was convicted of felony drunken driving.

Jordan E. Olivetti was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law Friday upon the high court’s finding that he was guilty of a crime punishable as felony. Olivetti was found guilty of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior OWI conviction.

Upon that finding, justices suspended the Indianapolis attorney from the practice of law effective immediately. Olivetti is already under a disciplinary suspension in another cause, as well as under administrative suspension for dues nonpayment.

Justices previously found Olivetti had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) after he pleaded guilty in 2017 to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated in exchange for the dismissal of resisting law enforcement, possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia charges.

Olivetti is ordered to fulfill the continuing duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). Olivetti’s interim suspension will continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect. All justices concurred in In the Matter of: Jordan E. Olivetti, 19S-DI-307.

Steven T. Fulk of Indianapolis has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana effective immediately for his noncooperation with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against him. In April, the high court ordered Fulk to show cause why he shouldn’t be immediately suspended from the practice of law for failure to cooperate with the commission’s investigation. The nature of the grievance against Fulk was not disclosed in the court’s order.

After the commission filed a request for ruling and to tax costs asserting Fulk had still not cooperated by May, the attorney belatedly filed an unverified response to the show cause order. Justices suspended Fulk upon finding his response to show cause order inadequate. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10.1)(c)(3), his suspension will continue until the Executive Director of the Disciplinary Commission certifies to the high court that Fulk has cooperated fully with the investigation or until further order of the court, provided there are no other suspensions then in effect.

Fulk is ordered to fulfill the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). He was also ordered to pay $527.50 for the costs of prosecuting the proceeding. All justices concurred in In the Matter of: Steven T. Fulk, 19S-DI-227.

The high court additionally imposed reciprocal discipline on Gallatin, Tennessee, attorney Randy Paul Lucas. The attorney, who is also licensed in Indiana, was suspended from the practice of law in Tennessee in February for three years with six months of active suspension and the remainder on probation, due to professional misconduct.

Finding no showing as to why reciprocal discipline should not be issued in Indiana, the high court indefinitely suspended Lucas from the practice of law in the Hoosier state. In its order in In the Matter of: Randy Paul Lucas, 19S-DI-158, the high court noted Lucas is already under suspension in Indiana for noncompliance with the state’s continuing legal education requirements.

Lucas was thus ordered to fulfill the continuing duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). If Lucas is reinstated to practice in Tennessee, he may file a Motion for Release from Reciprocal Suspension in Indiana pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(20)(g), provided no other suspension orders are in effect against him. The costs of the proceeding are assessed against him, and all justices concurred.