GW settles Title IX lawsuit with former admitted student

A former student agreed to settle a lawsuit with the University last week after claiming she was wrongly barred from campus following a domestic dispute and faced sexist treatment from the University Police Department.

The admitted student, who is unnamed in court documents, sued the University and UPD Chief RaShall Brackney in February claiming she was discriminated against based on her gender after she was arrested following a dispute with a male student and was then barred from University property.

The lawsuit was settled Sept. 29, according to court documents. The terms of the settlement are unknown.

The plaintiff’s attorney Paul Zuckerberg said the case was settled by mutual agreement and declined to comment further on the settlement.

University spokeswoman Maralee Csellar said the parties agreed “to resolve the matter without the need for further litigation” and the case was dismissed.

In the original complaint, the student alleged that she had “obvious physical injuries” after an altercation with another admitted student, but only she was arrested by UPD. Her application to the Elliott School was then rescinded following the incident, according to complaint.

Following her arrest, she claimed that she was barred from University property but that officials did not make her aware of her barring until 20 days after the arrest, according to the complaint.

The student originally asked for compensation based on damages for emotional distress and loss of employment opportunities, according to the complaint.

In a response to the complaint in June, the University argued that the Metropolitan Police Department – not UPD – arrested the student. GW denied the student’s claims that it violated Title IX, the federal anti-discrimination law, or human rights and civil rights laws. The University also argued that claims about a breach of contract and negligence by campus officials were unfounded, according to court documents.

“Defendants did not discriminate against Plaintiff, and did not breach any contractual obligation or duty of care owed to her,” GW’s response stated.

The Hatchet has disabled comments on our website. Learn more.