A federal magistrate judge has ruled against Purdue University’s efforts for a new judgment in a case that found the school had retaliated against a student who came forward with sexual assault allegations.
The school argued that the jury’s verdict was in error and tried to get a new trial.
At the heart of Purdue’s argument was that there was a logic error in the jury’s findings because they had determined the university had treated a student differently because she was a woman - but individual administrators had not.
In its ruling last year, the jury found that the university had treated the student, Nancy Roe, differently after she came forward with assault allegations because she was a woman.
The jury also found that the conduct of Alyssa Rollock, vice-president for ethics and compliance at Purdue, and Katie Sermersheim, associate provost and dean of students at Purdue, was in “malicious or in reckless disregard” of the student’s rights.
But the jury did not order the Purdue administrators to pay damages and also did not find that they had treated the student differently because she was a woman.
In his response to Purdue’s argument, Magistrate Judge John Martin said that the University failed to raise problems with inconsistencies in the jury’s verdict before the jury disbanded, and “the verdict does not at all resist efforts at reconciliation.”
Initially, the jury ruled that Roe should be paid $10,000 in damages. The plaintiff has since sought coverage for attorneys fees from Purdue as well.
The judge awarded attorney fees of roughly $125,000.
Additionally, Martin granted the student’s request to have references to disciplinary actions removed from her academic record and ordered Purdue to attach a copy of the jury verdict to her transcripts.
In a statement, a Purdue spokesperson noted that the case was being appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and noted that “we continue to stand behind our outstanding administrators who are women of great professionalism and integrity.”
“Purdue is disappointed that serious legal defects in the case remain unaddressed,” the spokesperson said. “Like the plaintiff herself, the court’s ruling does not suggest or point to any evidence that the plaintiff’s suspension was motivated by bias against women.”
The spokesperson also noted there is “no disciplinary reference on Nancy Roe’s Purdue transcript” but added the university would attach a copy of the jury verdict “while the trial court’s order remains in effect.”
The plaintiff’s attorney did not respond to our request for comment.
