Student Sues URI Claiming School Defamed Her After Voyeurism Incident
“The lawsuit, which had originally been filed in Superior Court in Rhode Island, was refiled in federal court in the District of Rhode Island last week.”
This is a good reminder that men in the bathroom with women is a bad idea.
GoLocalProv reports:
Student’s Federal Suit Claims URI Defamed Her After She Was Victim of Video Voyeurism in Bathroom
A University of Rhode Island (URI) student has sued the school, after she says a man in a unisex bathroom on campus recorded her while she was showering – and that the university subsequently “defamed” her.
The woman, who is represented by attorneys Steven Fanning and Brie Fanning-DiLibero, alleges that URI “falsely, carelessly and negligently represented to third-parties” that the alleged perpetrator was “known to her, as the victim,” making her “easily identifiable.”
She has filed the lawsuit as “Jane Doe,” and she is seeking “an order that the Defendants make whole the Plaintiff with appropriate compensation for emotional and physical distress, loss of consortium, and interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their conduct.”
The lawsuit, which had originally been filed in Superior Court in Rhode Island, was refiled in federal court in the District of Rhode Island last week.
“Doe” also names the Rhode Island Council for Postsecondary Education and “JP” as defendants.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
?
so is the school saying that the victim is not a victim b/c she knew the suspect?
That’s what it seems like. But that sentence is hard to parse.
It sure is. As far as I can tell from this mishmash, the school “defamed” her when it leaked the information that she knew her attacker, which (due to their particular circumstances) served to reveal her identity, thus violating her privacy as a victim.
Definitely seems like a stretch. I’m guessing that the way it was “leaked” was in a Clery Act declaration by the university.
Title IX and the Clery Act require that the university disclose incidents of such nature to the student populace and (I believe) whether or not the victim and the attacker were acquainted (as such notifications typically contain that information). I doubt this civil suit holds up if what I suspect is true.
That’s what I got out of it but that is such a weird defense I’m surprised someone at the school thought it would fly.
Since the perp is known, local law enforcement should arrest the perp and throw the creep in prison, for a long, long time.
The problem is that it was a unisex bathroom, so he was legally allowed to be there. The voyeurism is definitely a charge that can be levied but not much else could stick.
“It’s not voyeurism unless you video it?”