UPDATED: Judge Rules Brown Lax Player Accused of Sexual Assault Can Return to Campus, Rejoin Team

UPDATED: Judge Rules Brown Lax Player Accused of Sexual Assault Can Return to Campus, Rejoin Team

A federal court judge ruled this week that a Brown lacrosse player — who had been accused of sexual assault and suspended by the university — can return to campus during the college’s investigation into the allegations.

As GoLocal first reported earlier in January, two members of the men’s lacrosse team at Brown were accused this past fall of sexual assault. The two alleged unrelated incidents took place over the Halloween weekend and Brown placed both students on suspension. 

In two separate lawsuits, the alleged perpetrators have been seeking federal court action to intervene so that they can continue at the university academically and play lacrosse this spring.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

In the case of “John Stiles” — the first case filed in December using a pseudonym for the alleged attacker — United States District Judge Mary McElroy Tuesday ruled that Brown must allow him back on campus. 

Moreover, McElroy said “Stiles” can be allowed back on the lacrosse team. 

Now, GoLocal has learned that the lawsuit by the second student accused of sexual assault — “David Smith” — has been dismissed. 

“Plaintiff David Smith and Defendant Brown University, through their authorized counsel of record, stipulate that Plantiff’s Verified Complaint…is dismissed without prejudice,” according to court documents filed this week. 

Court records show that after the “Smith” lawsuit was filed on January 14, there were fifteen telephone conferences — and multiple motions to seal. 

Smith’s attorney Patrick Lynch said he had “no comment” on McElroy’s decision in the Stiles case.

 

Judge's "Stiles" Ruling

McElroy’s Stiles ruling states the following. 

"The Sexual Misconduct Procedure permits the 'interim actions' of emergency removal from campus and suspension pending resolution of a complaint if “there is reasonable cause to believe that the 'Prohibited Conduct is likely to continue and/or the Respondent poses a significant threat of harm to the health, safety, and welfare of others or the University community.' 

Here, however, the facts suggest that, in both assessments that it made, the Threat Assessment Team failed to demonstrate anything that would indicate they afforded the plaintiff a presumption that he was not responsible for the alleged conduct as required by contract. Instead, it focused on the nature of the unproven allegations and removed him from campus and suspended him before performing any investigation of those allegations. The plaintiff therefore is likely to succeed on his claim that Brown could not fairly determine if there were 'reasonable cause to believe' that the plaintiff would likely continue his alleged prohibited conduct or otherwise be a threat to the university community. 

In sum, the plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that he is likely to succeed on his claim that the Threat Assessment Team failed to afford him a presumption that he was not responsible for the misconduct alleged and thus that 'the university has failed to meet [the student’s] reasonable expectations' of the terms of the relevant contract. 

The balance of the equities favors the plaintiff. Brown’s interest in protecting the plaintiff’s accuser is mitigated by the fact that a no-contact order is in place between the plaintiff and her, he has not contacted her since before it entered, when he responded to a text message that she sent. Indeed, the plaintiff was on the campus for nearly three weeks without incident between the alleged assault and the date of the suspension. Moreover, while Brown has an interest in applying its own disciplinary policies, it faces little hardship in allowing the plaintiff to proceed with his academic and athletic activities while the disciplinary process plays out. The ramifications of the suspension to the plaintiff, however, are substantial."

McElroy concluded with the following. 

"The balance of the equities favors the plaintiff. Brown’s interest in protecting the plaintiff’s accuser is mitigated by the fact that a no-contact order is in place between the plaintiff and her, he has not contacted her since before it entered, when he responded to a text message that she sent. Indeed, the plaintiff was on the campus for nearly three weeks without incident between the alleged assault and the date of the suspension. 

Moreover, while Brown has an interest in applying its own disciplinary policies, it faces little hardship in allowing the plaintiff to proceed with his academic and athletic activities while the disciplinary process plays out. The ramifications of the suspension to the plaintiff, however, are substantial."

Brown University spokesperson Brian Clark provided the following statement in response to the decision. 

"In Stiles vs. Brown, the University has reviewed the court’s Jan. 25 decision and will comply with the order. Brown will continue its prompt and equitable investigation of the complaint alleging sexual misconduct under its policies and procedures, which are grounded in fairness and support for both complainants and respondents."

This story was first published 1/26/22 4:58 PM

Updated: 1/27/22 7:32 AM