CSC faces jury trial in civil case surrounding 2016 on-campus rape allegation

Male student from 2016 claim is identified in connection with a second rape allegation in October 2019

Days after a federal judge in Omaha denied CSC’s request for a summary judgement in a lawsuit surrounding a 2016 rape case on campus, The Eagle has learned that the male student connected to that case was identified in connection with a second rape allegation in October 2019.

Furthermore, the male student – who has not been arrested or charged in connection with either allegation – is currently enrolled in on-campus and online courses, and identifies a local domicile as his permanent address. 

Although his name appears in numerous legal documents surrounding both cases, The Eagle has chosen not to publish it because he has not been charged with a crime.

On Friday Judge Joseph F. Bataillon ruled that a jury trial will go forward in the case of a lawsuit filed by an unnamed former Chadron State College student against the Nebraska State College System in connection with the 2016 alleged rape. 

In issuing his ruling, Bataillon said that evidence exists that CSC “responded with deliberate indifference,” in reaction to the reported rape.

Bataillon was ruling on a motion for a summary judgment put forward by the NSCS. According to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, summary judgment procedure is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.  

In order for a summary judgment to succeed, the motioning party must show that there is no dispute as to the facts of the case and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The judge must determine if a reasonable jury could rule in favor of either party. If the judge determines a reasonable jury could only rule in one way, a summary judgment can be granted. If not, the case moves to a jury trial. 

According to court documents, “on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the evidence are jury functions, not those of a judge.”

Friday’s decision found the college’s investigation of the credible reports of sexual assault could be viewed as cursory and that “a reasonable juror could find that the college understated or trivialized the seriousness of the conduct.” 

Bataillon’s determination goes on to state “given the information known to the college, there is evidence that would support a conclusion that the college’s response to the situation was not reasonable.”

In its official response, Tuesday, CSC said “the recent summary judgement decision in Doe vs. the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges did not find that the college violated Title IX, but merely determined that there are questions of fact in this matter that must be decided by a jury.” 

The statement also said the college “believes it handled Jane Doe’s complaint in a fair and compassionate manner and in compliance with Title IX. The College looks forward to presenting its defense at trial.”

The complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court in July of 2017, states an unnamed woman, referred to as Jane Doe in court documents, who was an international student at CSC, claimed she was sexually assaulted on two occasions by a male CSC student.

During a Title IX investigation of the report, Associate Vice President of Human Resources Anne DeMersseman, who at the time was CSC’s Title IX coordinator, determined neither of the reported sexual encounters between Jane Doe and the male student (one in May, the other in September of 2016) were consensual. 

Court documents show that “(the male student) admitted (1) that Jane Doe never gave him verbal consent, and (2) that Jane Doe said ‘stop’ at least once during their sexual encounter.”

However, it is worth restating that following a criminal investigation the male student was not arrested or charged.

On Tuesday, during a review of court documents, The Eagle discovered an affidavit in support of a search warrant filed Oct. 4, 2019, in the Dawes County Court, that sought a warrant for the male student’s cell phone related to a second report of rape on campus. 

The affidavit, from Sergeant Chelsey Stolley, of the Chadron Police Department, details a claim by an 18-year-old CSC female freshman that the male student raped her in her dorm room in the early morning hours of Oct. 2, 2019. 

The search warrant for his phone was never granted. Again, the male student was not arrested or charged with a crime in this case.

In the 2016 and 2019 cases, both women claiming the male student raped them underwent a rape examination kit at Chadron Community Hospital, which triggered law enforcement involvement. 

Tim Lordino, Chadron Police Chief, declined comment and suggested questions be directed to Dawes County Attorney Vance Haug. Haug also declined comment. 

According to court documents related to the 2016 report, DeMersseman’s Title IX investigation findings were reported to Randy Rhine, CSC president; John Hansen, vice president of enrollment management, marketing and student services; Pat Beu, then senior director of student affairs; and Sherri Simons, then housing & residence life director. Simons retired in 2018; Beu’s post was eliminated effective 2019. 

Court documents state that the male student received an indefinite continuation of a “no contact order” between he and Jane Doe. He was also ordered to attend weekly counseling sessions with the CSC Counseling Office and was to have his need for counseling reevaluated each semester. The male student was also placed on behavioral probation and required to read “The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help.” 

In addition to reading the book, the male student was ordered to keep a journal to review his thoughts with his counselor and Hansen on or before Dec. 1, 2016. 

The male student also completed online consent and alcohol courses.  

According to court documents, Jane Doe responded in writing that she did not feel safe on campus and that she did not believe the school responded adequately. 

The court documents also state that DeMersseman submitted “a declaration that in her opinion, (the male student) was emotionally immature and had ‘an insufficient understanding of consent,’” but she did not believe (the male student) posed a danger to the CSC community. 

Under Title IX policy 3020, consequences for violating the policy, which DeMersseman’s investigation concluded had happened, “may include, but are not limited to: warnings, disciplinary probation, loss of privileges, restitution, remedial work assignments, remedial educational requirements, service requirements, remedial behavior requirements, college housing relocation, college housing suspension, removal from college housing, suspension and expulsion.