Lawsuit: "waterboarding, sexual harassment...." at Virginia Military Institute

glen

10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
425

Among the allegations:

• "An upper-class cadet ordered a male cadet to pick his favorite porn star and give a PowerPoint presentation about that porn star to a room full of female cadets;"
• "An upper-class cadet ordered a male cadet to wear woman’s leopard-print underwear for an entire week without changing or cleaning the underwear;"
• "An upper-class cadet ordered a male cadet to strip down to his underwear and execute a “Rat Mission” outdoors in the plain view of other cadets."
 

glen

10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
425
^^^Probably be more relevant if these allegations hadn’t been dismissed over six months ago. :oops2:

That is interesting - considering the judge in this case refused to dismiss the lawsuit - 5 months ago.

Maybe you are thinking of a different hazing lawsuit against VMI? This is the one alleging male cadet was forced to show female cadets porn movies, and wrestle naked....see:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...bf6be8-4446-11ea-aa6a-083d01b3ed18_story.html
"A wrestling match between John Doe and another first-year student is at the heart of Doe’s sexual harassment allegation, which included “naked wrestling and unwanted touching,” according to the complaint."
 

Landy91

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
159
:oops2:Nope, the case was dismissed in June. Need to check facts when articles shared are more than 9 months old...
 

glen

10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
425
Thanks but according to the May 28, 2020 article (5 months ago not 9) - (See below). only a change of Venue was granted - the court denied the motion to dismiss by VMI May 20, 2020 - not 9 months ago. If you have other credible proof case was dismissed with prejudice, please post it. Thanks

Cite: https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-bd-of-visitors-of-va-military-inst
Head notes:
Doev.Bd. of Visitors of Va. Military Inst.
Download PDFCheck treatment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISIONMay 20, 2020
Civil Action No. 7:20CV00058 (W.D. Va. May. 20, 2020)Copy Citation

Civil Action No. 7:20CV00058
05-20-2020
JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF VISITORS OF VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE, et al., Defendants.
https://casetext.com/why-casetext/?utm_source=casepage&utm_medium=ad&utm_content=better-lawyer
By: Hon. Glen E. Conrad Senior United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
"On January 28, 2020, John Doe, a former cadet at Virginia Military Institute ("VMI"), filed this action against the Board of Visitors of VMI, two VMI officials (collectively, the "VMI Defendants"), and five upper-class cadets (collectively, the "Defendant Cadets"), asserting claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-88; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Virginia law. The case is presently before the court on the VMI Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Lynchburg Division of the Western District of Virginia. The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, the court will grant the motion to transfer venue. The motion will be denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal for improper venue."
 

Landy91

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
159
:oops2: Definitely need to check your dates and facts. Case was dismissed in June, but you really seem vested in this...
 
Last edited:

glen

10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
425
Thanks - but if you have proof of final dismissal in June - please provide a citation to the dismissal. The above citation only says venue change was granted on May 20th. If as you say the case was dismissed, was it with prejudice or without prejudice - so the plaintiff can refile in the correct venue?
 

glen

10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
425
LOL...So the case was just dismissed with prejudice as to the federal counts this month - 3 days ago! And as to 6 counts under Virginia Law, the court did not dismiss with prejudice - which means the case can and likely will be refiled by plaintiff.
 

A1Janitor

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
1,737
LOL...So the case was just dismissed with prejudice as to the federal counts this month - 3 days ago! And as to 6 counts under Virginia Law, the court did not dismiss with prejudice - which means the case can and likely will be refiled by plaintiff.

The claims against VMI were dismissed with prejudice. They can’t be brought against VMI again.

The claims against the five student individuals are dismissed without prejudice allowing them to bring the case in state court. Here is what the judge said and why:

9A2B93B7-9DDD-4924-A024-41505E0B34D3.jpeg
 

glen

10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
425
A1Janitor - Thanks that helps clarify the matter. I think the Federal Court was dimissing the state law claims out of judicial comity and deferring the matter to allow plaintiffs the choice of filing the state law claims in state court against the individuals. In state court lacking federal claims, but still having the choice to assert tort claims - likely VMI as a state institution will not be subject to suit by virtue of sovereign immunity - a technical knockout. But individuals may be if the plaintiff can introduce claims under state law.
 

VMI2017+3

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
158
Pretty sure what happened is those VA violations were going to be heard in federal court along with the federal accusations. Now that the federal violations are dismissed w/o prejudice, the federal court isn’t going to hear a case solely of state violations. Plaintiff can still sue the former Cadets in VA for what they did, but the federal violations w.r.t. the Institute are permanently dismissed as you stated. Not surprising after having read the original suit, but also not a lawyer.
 

VMI2017+3

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
158
A1Janitor - Thanks that helps clarify the matter. I think the Federal Court was dimissing the state law claims out of judicial comity and deferring the matter to allow plaintiffs the choice of filing the state law claims in state court against the individuals. In state court lacking federal claims, but still having the choice to assert tort claims - likely VMI as a state institution will not be subject to suit by virtue of sovereign immunity - a technical knockout. But individuals may be if the plaintiff can introduce claims under state law.
Beat me to it....
 

glen

10-Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
425
VMI2017+3 - of course plaintiff can appeal the lower court's ruling to 4th Circuit Ct of Appeals - the counts dismissed were matters of law not fact. The Order was just issued Oct 20, so will see if the plaintiff has interest in pursuing it either on appeal or in state court.
 

VMI2017+3

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
158
VMI2017+3 - of course plaintiff can appeal the lower court's ruling to 4th Circuit Ct of Appeals - the counts dismissed were matters of law not fact. The Order was just issued Oct 20, so will see if the plaintiff has interest in pursuing it either on appeal or in state court.
I mean of course this is all matters of law; they’re court cases. Everything else is subjective.
 

Landy91

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
159
Thank y’all for clearing this up! Always wary of articles 9+ months or older...
 
Top