UNC, expelled student settle suit over sexual assault investigation

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a former student identified in court records as Jacob Doe have settled their lawsuit over the sexual assault investigation that led to Doe’s expulsion.

Terms of the settlement will remain sealed. Doe’s identity will remain confidential, along with the names of four female accusers identified in court documents as Jane Roe 1-4.

Chief US District Judge Martin Reidinger issued an order Friday signing off on the settlement.

“THE COURT FINDS under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1.3 that the presumption of openness to the Settlement Agreement is overcome by the overriding privacy and reputational interests of Plaintiff and Roes 1-4, and that this overriding interest cannot be protected by any measure short of sealing the Settlement Agreement,” Reidinger wrote.

Reidinger determined that “entry of this Consent Decree is just and reasonable with respect to all Parties and is in the interests of justice.”

The case “implicates significant reputational and privacy interests of Plaintiff and Roes 1-4, the disclosure of which would cause irreparable harm to those interests,” Reidinger wrote. “The Settlement Agreement sets forth terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the Parties that, if disclosed, are reasonably likely to lead to the identification of Plaintiff and Roes 1-4, potentially causing emotional damage to the Plaintiff.”

“Thus, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1.3, the Settlement Agreement pertains to confidential matters affecting the reputational and privacy interests of the Plaintiff and Roes 1-4, the disclosure of which would cause irreparable harm to those interests,” the judge added.

Reidinger will maintain jurisdiction of the case “for purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and this Consent Decree.”

The judge had issued an order in March setting the case for a May trial. Doe could argue that UNC officials violated his due process rights, that the university failed to follow Title IX requirements, and that officials engaged in negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Reidinger’s order dropped a fourth claim. Doe had argued that UNC officials illegally led to him losing the prestigious Morehead-Cain scholarship.

“The Plaintiff, however, has alleged only that ‘UNC intentionally induced the Morehead-Cain Foundation to cease carrying out the contract with Plaintiff,’ rather than any of the Employee Defendants,” Reidinger wrote. “The Plaintiff has not forecast any evidence that the asserted interference with the Plaintiff’s contract with MCF resulted from conduct by any of the Employee Defendants. Accordingly, based on this forecast of evidence, no reasonable jury could find that the Employee Defendants tortiously interfered with the Plaintiff’s contract with MCF. The Court will therefore grant summary judgment in favor of the Employee Defendants on this claim.”

The UNC defendants had asked Reidinger to grant them summary judgment on the other claims as well. “Regarding the Plaintiff’s NIED, Title IX, and due process claims, the forecasts of evidence present genuine issues of disputed material fact,” Reidinger wrote. “Accordingly, the Court will deny summary judgment on these three claims and set them for trial.”

In a separate order, Reidinger allowed both Doe and UNC defendants to present evidence from competing Title IX experts. The judge rejected two experts Doe put forward to discuss the impact of his expulsion on his future job prospects.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April 2025 that Doe could not seek monetary damages in his lawsuit against the school. He could seek to be reinstated and to have his record cleared.

Doe challenged the way UNC addressed sexual assault charges against him in 2021.

“Jacob Doe, a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was found responsible for two allegations of sexual misconduct against female classmates,” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote for a unanimous 4th Circuit panel. “As a result, Doe lost his scholarship and was permanently expelled from the entire University of North Carolina system.”

“Doe sued the university and several employees for deprivations of Fourteenth Amendment due process, violations of his rights under Title IX, and a handful of state law claims. The district court largely denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, allowing Doe’s federal claims and most of his state law claims to advance,” Wilkinson wrote.

“We reverse in part, affirm in part, and dismiss in part,” the judge explained. “Because we hold that the district court erred in rejecting the defendants’ assertions of sovereign and qualified immunity, we reverse the judgment below to the extent it permitted Doe to pursue money damages. But we think the district court properly allowed Doe to seek prospective injunctive relief for the due process violations he alleges.”

Four female students — each identified as Jane Roe — lodged complaints against Doe. Hearings and appeals extended through February 2023, when the university’s Board of Trustees affirmed a decision to expel Doe.

He sued in federal court. “The upshot of Doe’s complaint is that the university and its employees denied him fair and adequate disciplinary proceedings, leading to erroneous outcomes in the Roe 1 and Roe 4 matters and causing serious damage to his education, reputation, and career prospects,” Wilkinson wrote.

“Doe asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of Fourteenth Amendment due process, a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 for an erroneous disciplinary outcome, and a series of claims under North Carolina law,” the appellate decision continued. “He sought compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction vacating the disciplinary findings in the Roe 1 and Roe 4 matters, expunging his disciplinary record, and readmitting him to UNC-CH.”

Redinger denied UNC officials’ motion to dismiss the case and allowed most of Doe’s claims to move forward.

“We think the district court erred in denying the UNC institutions’ motion to dismiss Doe’s claims against them on sovereign immunity grounds, and neither of Doe’s arguments persuades us to the contrary,” Wilkinson wrote.

That decision precluded Doe from seeking monetary damages. “Because the UNC institutions are entitled to state sovereign immunity, the employee defendants sued in their official capacities are ‘protected from a damages action by the same immunity,’” Wilkinson explained. “But Doe seeks more than just money damages for the due process deprivations he alleges. He also requests three forms of injunctive relief: ‘(i) a vacating of the disciplinary findings and decisions; (ii) expungement of his academic record; and (iii) reinstatement as a student in good standing.’”

“We hold that Doe has alleged a liberty interest sufficient to trigger procedural due process protections,” Wilkinson wrote. “A plaintiff asserting a liberty interest in his reputation must show (1) a stigmatizing statement, (2) some type of dissemination, and (3) some other government action that ‘alters or extinguishes one of his legal rights.’”

“Given the pejorative nature of the alleged misconduct and the severity of the actual sanction imposed, we hold that a sufficient liberty interest has been alleged,” the opinion added.

“We think as well that an erroneous university record of a student’s permanent expulsion for sexual misconduct inflicts an ongoing injury for which the student can seek equitable relief,” Wilkinson wrote.

Judges Steven Agee and Henry Floyd joined Wilkinson’s opinion.

“UNC, expelled student settle suit over sexual assault investigation” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.