Cornell Frat Bro Loses Lawsuit Against University Over Attempted Sexual Exploitation Punishment

October 3, 2026:

Cornell Frat Bro Loses Lawsuit Against University Over Attempted Sexual Exploitation Punishment

cornell art getty comp

One of the men being sued over an alleged 2024 gang rape at Cornell University sued the college last March over the consequences he was hit with for the incident, TMZ has learned, and just days ago he lost his case.

John Doe sued Cornell over the investigation conducted into the alleged rape that took place on October 19, 2024, at the Chi Phi fraternity house.

According to legal docs, Doe says he received the Snapchat message — “Free P***y” — and he and one other frat brother went to the room … he says because they were unsure if the message was a joke or not.

He also says he went there to get a new vape. He says “By no means were we going there to get free p***y.” He says when they arrived “Everybody in there seemed fine.”

He claimed he was not given the chance to properly defend himself at the University’s disciplinary hearing … because they brought “charges” of sexual exploitation but only found him responsible for attempted sexual exploitation.

Cornell University chi phi text thread wm

The disciplinary panel found by responding to the Snapchat message and going up to the room, that constituted attempted sexual exploitation.

He said he had no idea attempted sexual exploitation was even a possible result and that, had he known, he would have employed a different strategy.

During the disciplinary hearing, the alleged victim — Jane Doe — testified the 2 men were like “voyeurs” because “they were just looming.”

Cornell Chi Phi getty 1

Jane says that at the time the 2 men were in the room, she was under a sheet at times and “she had no specific recollection of whether John Doe saw her naked when she stood up, or if he snorted ketamine off her.”

She also testified that, by even going up to the room after seeing the “free p***y” Snapchat, he was no better than the men who assaulted her.

Cornell imposed a no-contact order for John and the alleged victim, had him take a class on the issues of social media and sexual harassment, and write a “reflection paper.”

His lawyer also argued that one of the panel members was distracted when a witness was testifying. He claimed one panel member was driving a car for 45 minutes and was “otherwise distracted while a witness” was testifying.

Cornell University getty 4

In one email from John’s lawyer to Cornell, he wrote the panel member in question “has not adhered to her responsibilities as a hearing panel member.” He said the panel member had “repeatedly demonstrated that she is engaged in other work during hearing sessions.”

Cornell argued John received a fair investigation and the court affirmed the University’s decision.

On September 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of New York (the trial court) rejected John Doe’s petition, upholding the University’s decision, finding the hearing was properly held and John Doe’s rights were fully protected.

Source link

tags

Abkhazia Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Curacao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Fiji Finland France French Polynesia Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea North Macedonia Northern Cyprus Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Republic of the Congo Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Transnistria Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda UK Ukraine United Arab Emirates Uruguay USA Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe