Student’s Federal Suit Claims URI Defamed Her After She Was Victim of Video Voyeurism in Bathroom

Student’s Federal Suit Claims URI Defamed Her After She Was Victim of Video Voyeurism in Bathroom

A University of Rhode Island (URI) student has sued the school, after she says a man in a unisex bathroom on campus recorded her while she was showering - and that the university subsequently “defamed” her.

The woman, who is represented by attorneys Steven Fanning and Brie Fanning-DiLibero, alleges that URI “falsely, carelessly and negligently represented to third-parties” that the alleged perpetrator was “known to her, as the victim,” making her “easily identifiable.”

She has filed the lawsuit as “Jane Doe,” and she is seeking “an order that the Defendants make whole the Plaintiff with appropriate compensation for emotional and physical distress, loss of consortium, and interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their conduct.”

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

The lawsuit, which had originally been filed in Superior Court in Rhode Island, was refiled in federal court in the District of Rhode Island last week.

“Doe” also names the Rhode Island Council for Postsecondary Education and “JP” as defendants.

Court records show that James Paquette, age 30, was arrested on a felony video voyeurism charge. The arrest was made by the University of Rhode Island Police Department.

He is free on $2,000 bond.

 

 

About Allegations

In the lawsuit, "Doe" says that as a freshman, she resided in Adams Hall, which “maintained gender inclusive/unisex bathrooms as designed and dictated by the Defendants.”

She says that on April 29, 2025, she was with her female roommate in the unisex bathroom located on the 4th floor of Adams Hall.

“Upon entering the bathroom, she noticed a male walking into the bathroom in front of her. [Doe] did not know this individual and, consistent with university policy of allowing all genders to utilize the facility, [Doe] continued into the bathroom,” according to the lawsuit.

“The male individual referenced above was later identified as Defendant J.P.  When [Doe's] roommate exited the bathroom, [Doe] entered the right side shower, proceeded to fully undress and began showering,” the lawsuit continued.

Doe then describes the showers in the bathroom - and what happened next.

“Midway through her shower, [Doe] noticed that the male individual referenced above had entered the middle shower stall which was connected by a wall to [her] shower stall. As stated above, this ‘wall’ was open on the top and on the bottom and concealed only in front by a thin curtain with no door or lock,” the lawsuit states. “[She] observed that although the male individual was in the shower stall next to her, there was no water running in that stall and [She] observed from the bottom of the open shower that he appeared to be clothed with his sneakers still on.”

It was at that point, according to Doe, that she realized she was being recorded.

“[She] then looked above her shower stall and noticed the male individual was holding a cell phone camera over her stall recording/photographing her showering,” according to the lawsuit. “[Doe] began to yell and confronted the male individual who stated that he was sorry and fled the scene.”

Doe says she “immediately contacted the URI/South Kingstown Police Department to report this matter.”

“Upon information and belief, upon [Her] report of this incident, the Defendant University made no announcement to the student body of this incident and provided no safeguards in terms of reasonable notification or other security measures,” according to the lawsuit. “Moreover, upon information and belief, the Defendant University took no immediate and independent steps to bar the alleged perpetrator from campus.”

 

Allegations Against the University

The lawsuit goes on to state that “on or about May 1, 2025, police officer(s) presented Doe with a photo lineup  in which she "positively identified Defendant J.P. as the alleged perpetrator.”

She says in the suit that what transpired adversely impacted her life on campus.

“As of the incident date, [Doe] was compelled to leave her residence hall and, to date, has been unable to return to campus for residential purposes,” according to the lawsuit. “She was unable to complete certain academic work and/complete exams pursuant to her professor’s predetermined schedules and was compelled to seek several accommodations in an effort to conclude her Spring Semester academic obligations.”

It was when the story was reported in the news, said Doe, that she alleges URI acted illegally.  

“Upon reasonable information and belief, as part of these news reports, the  Defendant University falsely, carelessly and negligently represented to third parties that the alleged perpetrator was “known” to the victim (the victim being easily identifiable as the [Doe]),” states the lawsuit. “Defendant University’s representation was false, misleading and shed [Doe] in a negative light to third parties.”

According to the lawsuit, Doe then filed a Title IX complaint with the university, but that “in a communication from the University dated May 28, 2025, the University’s Title IX office determined that it had no jurisdiction over the matter and refused to process the matter as a potential Title IX violation.”

Moreover, Doe states that the incident had further repercussions.

“On or about June 5, 2025,  [Doe] was notified by the University that, after a review of her academic record, she did not meet the eligibility requirements to retain her merit based scholarship status for the upcoming semester -  a negative action that was taken after [she] reported to the police and the university that she was a victim of a crime on campus,” according to the laswuit.

“[Doe] appealed this decision both individually and through counsel [and] was not notified by the University that her merit would be reinstated until after [she] made several overtures to the University to determine the status of her appeal and [she] remained under the impression that her merit had been revoked for several weeks—a circumstance which caused her additional stress and anxiety,” according to the lawsuit.

Doe is suing on eight counts - assault (as to defendant J.P.); negligence (as to defendant URI); punitive damages (all defendants); defamation (defendant URI); Title IX (defendant URI); Breach of Contract (defendant URI); Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (defendant URI); and Negligence (defendant Board).

Neither URI nor Doe's attorneys responded to request for comment.