Lions WR Quintez Cephus can argue Wisconsin had anti-male bias in Title IX case: Judge

ALLEN PARK, MICHIGAN - JULY 28: Quintez Cephus #87 of the Detroit Lions walks out to the field during the Detroit Lions Training Camp on July 28, 2021 in Allen Park, Michigan. (Photo by Nic Antaya/Getty Images)
By Daniel Kaplan
Dec 16, 2022

Detroit Lions wide receiver and former University of Wisconsin star Quintez Cephus can continue his Title IX lawsuit against his alma mater for allegedly discriminating against him because he is male, a federal judge ruled this week, rejecting the school’s motion to dismiss the case entirely. The lawsuit is also aimed at the former university chancellor and the school’s Title IX coordinator.

Advertisement

In April 2018, two female students accused Cephus, then a junior, of sexually assaulting them while they were drunk, which he denied, claiming the sex was consensual. Though the university initially expelled Cephus from school after finding he had assaulted and harassed the students, that decision was later reversed after in a criminal case a jury on Aug. 2, 2019, dismissed the charges.

While the jury verdict cleared Cephus and he returned to campus for the 2019 football season, the university’s decision to reinstate him did leave intact the finding he sexually harassed his accusers and forbade him from coming into contact with them. After the season, Cephus was selected by the Lions in the fifth round of the 2020 NFL Draft.

According to his lawsuit, the 13-month university-run investigation that followed the accusations was tainted by “anti-male” bias, evidenced by a rush to expel him before “exculpatory evidence” collected in the parallel criminal case could be turned over to the university.

Cephus’ “criminal acquittal was preceded by the submission of new evidence to the jury, including surveillance videos documenting her interactions with (him) that arguably suggested (she) may have been less intoxicated or tired than previously thought (and therefore, more capable of consenting to sex),” judge William Conley wrote earlier this year in a different case dismissing one of the accuser’s own Title IX claims against the university for readmitting the football player.

Conley also is presiding over Cephus’ case, and the jurist wrote that Cephus has presented enough evidence to proceed to the next stage of litigation. At the motion to dismiss phase of litigation, the evidence has not yet been subject to discovery, so the university could still get the case tossed before trial. Nevertheless, Conley saw enough to decide Cephus can argue he is a victim of anti-male bias.

Advertisement

“Whether (the evidence) hold(s) up to closer examination or not, the court concludes that these allegations are sufficient to state a Title IX sex discrimination case on their face,” he wrote. “Ultimately, Cephus may not be able to submit evidence that supports all of these allegations, and he may not be able to convince a reasonable finder of fact to infer sex discrimination from his evidence. Taken together, however, Cephus’ allegations of external pressure on the University and an internal practice of blaming men for sexual violence, along with his allegations regarding his particular disciplinary proceedings (particularly, the University’s refusal to wait for exculpatory evidence it knew existed and the decision to move forward with a one-sided record), give rise to a plausible inference of discriminatory intent.”

Lawyers for the state of Wisconsin did not reply for comment.

Title IX is the section of the federal 1972 Education Amendments that guarantees equal access based on gender to programs at universities receiving federal funding. Claims related to sexual assault under Title IX are typically brought by female students who argue their harassment deprives them of equal access to the school. The adjudication process in which the accused and accusers make their case does not typically follow legal thresholds deployed in courts.

For example, Conley wrote of Cephus’ criminal case, “the jury’s verdict was obviously reached under the heightened standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ as opposed to the Title IX determination made under a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard.”

In 2011, the Department of Education issued new guidance, “that schools prioritize the speedy investigation and resolution of harassment claims, minimize the questioning and cross-examination of complainants to avoid re-traumatization, and adopt a lenient “more likely than not” burden of proof, as opposed to a “clear and convincing” standard for adjudicating sexual misconduct claims,” Conley wrote summarizing Cephus’ description of the change.

Advertisement

In 2017 the DOE, responding to complaints that the accused were not receiving due process, rescinded the guidance, but Cephus alleged the university retained the older guidance.

The Cephus accuser who also filed a Title IX lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin is appealing the dismissal. She charges she was not consulted on the football player’s return to campus, which caused her great anxiety while attending the university.

Her complaint alleges the university caved to pressure from donors and the football team in allowing Cephus back.

“The donor for whom the football team’s building was named wanted Player 1 (Cephus) back on the field,” her appeal brief reads, referring to Ted Kellner, a wealthy alumnus. “So did his friends who had each given at least seven-figure donations to the University.”

And Conley in his dismissal of her complaint wrote the former student’s “main claim is that because Player 1 was a successful football player on an all-male team, the UW was incentivized to treat Doe’s (her) claim differently. There is some support for this argument, including that football appears to have played a role in Player 1’s petition for readmission being handled so quickly, if not in its outcome.”

(Photo: Nic Antaya / Getty Images)

Get all-access to exclusive stories.

Subscribe to The Athletic for in-depth coverage of your favorite players, teams, leagues and clubs. Try a week on us.