A former undergraduate business student claims he was unfairly suspended from his degree program just weeks before graduation after a university investigation into sexual misconduct failed to follow its own policies and denied him due process. The lawsuit was filed by John Doe in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 6, 2026, naming the University of Michigan, its Board of Regents, and several university employees as defendants.
According to the complaint prepared by Flood Law, PLLC, John Doe alleges that the university’s Equity, Civil Rights & Title IX (ECRT) Office mishandled an investigation stemming from an incident reported by a fellow student in October 2024. The filing outlines repeated delays in the investigation process—lasting more than twice as long as university policy allows—and claims that these delays disadvantaged Doe while giving strategic advantage to the complainant.
The plaintiff states that he was enrolled in both undergraduate and graduate business programs at the time of his suspension in February 2026. He had been scheduled to complete his Bachelor’s degree in May 2026 and his Master’s degree in May 2027. The cost of both degrees is cited as $435,000 combined, with Doe having received a $10,000 scholarship toward his graduate studies.
The dispute began when a female student filed a formal complaint with ECRT on February 18, 2025, alleging non-consensual sexual conduct during an off-campus encounter on October 10, 2024. Doe asserts that no such assault occurred and maintains that all interactions were consensual or initiated by the complainant herself. The lawsuit describes how Doe was not notified about the complaint until February 24, 2025—six days after it was filed—contrary to policy requirements for immediate notification.
Doe alleges significant procedural irregularities throughout the university’s response. He reports that interviews with the complainant and her witnesses took place months before he or his witnesses were interviewed. This sequence allegedly allowed only one narrative to shape the early stages of the investigation: “Complainant and her witnesses were only questioned about Complainant’s narrative,” states the filing. It further claims that investigators did not have any indication of disputed facts because Doe had not yet been interviewed.
The lawsuit also highlights concerns over evidence handling. According to Doe’s attorneys, when he requested access to academic records or medical documentation relevant to challenge aspects of the complainant’s account—including allegations about physical injuries—the university refused to obtain or compel production of such records: “Plaintiff was told…it was a voluntary process and Complainant only had to provide what she wanted.”
Additionally, discrepancies are noted regarding text message evidence submitted by the complainant. The complaint alleges omissions in message history and inconsistencies in timestamps between different sets provided: “This once again demonstrates Complainant’s ability and willingness to manipulate evidence to fit her alleged narrative.” Despite these issues being raised by Doe during proceedings, he claims they were disregarded by investigators and hearing officers.
Doe contends that delays attributed by ECRT staff to high workloads led to critical deadlines being missed or extended far beyond stated limits; for example, what should have been completed within three days often took weeks or months. In total, more than one year elapsed between initial complaint filing and conclusion of investigation—a period exceeding policy timelines by nearly six months.
After an eventual hearing on September 30, 2025—also delayed past expected dates—the Office of Student Conflict Resolution imposed a two-year suspension on November 13, 2025. An external reviewer later reduced this penalty to one year but Laura Jones (Vice President for Student Life) reversed this decision on February 13, 2026 without dating her written decision; Doe was then unenrolled from classes five days later without warning.
Throughout these proceedings, Doe argues he was deprived of fundamental fairness guaranteed under constitutional due process protections: “Plaintiff was disciplined without due process. This is clearly unconstitutional.” He further alleges discrimination based on gender under federal Title IX law as well as state civil rights statutes.
In relief sought from the court, Doe requests compensatory damages reflecting lost educational opportunities and financial costs incurred; reinstatement into his academic programs; removal of disciplinary sanctions from his record; injunctive relief requiring adherence to fair procedures; attorney fees; costs; interest; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is represented by Maura B. Battersby (P79089) at Flood Law PLLC (155 W Congress Suite 350 Detroit MI). As detailed in Case No. 2:26-cv-10768-MFL-APP filed March 6th, there is no judge named explicitly within this portion of court documents.
Source: 226cv10768_John_Doe_v_University_of_Michigan_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan..pdf
