Copyoffinal

Mock Trial
Wallis v. Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania
Riley Wallis, a 21-year-old student at Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania sues school for
negligent infliction of emotional distress because they mishandled a sexual harassment case
between Wallis and Morgan Miles, 22, also a student of the university.
Developed by Selena Mattei
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
2015 ©

Witnesses to Appear Before the Court
Riley Wallis v. Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania
Witnesses for the Plaintiff:
Riley Wallis, plaintiff
Dr. Sage Howard, psychologist
August Connolly, colleague
Witnesses for the Defense:
Sheridan Neumann, Title IX Coordinator
Dev Chandra, Representative from the Office of Civil Rights
1

Statement of Stipulated Facts
Beginning October 4, 2014 21-year old Riley Wallis, a student at Pine Hill University of
Pennsylvania, was allegedly sexually harassed by another student, Morgan Miles, 22, a student
at the same school. Both students have a junior status. They had been dating each other for
about a month prior to the alleged incident. The harassment allegedly endured for about a
month after the initial incident.
Wallis reported the incident to the Office of Student Conduct on October 28, 2014 directly to
the Student Conduct Officer on duty at the time. Riley expected school officials to come to a
resolution quickly. The Office of Student Conduct at Pine Hill University handles complaints
pertaining to any crime and gets investigators involved in cases if they truly believe that a crime
has occurred and is associated with the school. Investigators include school police, the Student
Conduct Board, and a Title IX Coordinator. Title IX Coordinators are responsible for ensuring
that a school is in compliance with Title IX.
While at the Office of Student Conduct, Wallis was informed that the school’s disciplinary
process would be much quicker than if a complaint was filed with the Pine Hill Police
Department. The Pine Hill Student Conduct Officer helped Wallis file a complaint and contacted
the school’s Title IX coordinator to inform them of the complaint and facilitate a Student
Conduct Board meeting to discuss the case with the plaintiff.
A meeting between the Pine Hill University Student Conduct Board, the Title IX Coordinator,
Sheridan Neumann, and Riley Wallis occurred on October 30, 2014. During the meeting the
Student Conduct Board issued a No-Contact Order (NCO) that would be effective until an
investigation of the incident was closed. NCOs can be issued in the event that any form of
violence occurs between peers, employees, a student and an employee, or a student or
employee and a third party to prohibit contact between parties. Means of communication can
include face-to-face or via technology.
Once an investigation is closed NCO can further be discussed to decide if they should be upheld
or terminated. A copy of the NCO placed against Morgan Miles was sent to both students. As a
result of the NCO, both students were required to coordinate schedules so that they both could
participate in the Debate Club. Each student would go to every other meeting as to avoid the
other.
By December, the investigation of the incident was still in the beginning stages and Wallis grew
impatient. As a result, Wallis made a few Twitter post on the Students of Pine Hill University of
Pennsylvania page about the inefficiency of the university’s judicial process and as an
encouragement to other victims of sexual violence to get help. Several of these posts were also
made on Riley’s personal Twitter page. The school’s Twitter page is moderated by a school
employee in charge of public relations who made the Student Conduct Board aware of the post.
It was taken down on December 10, 2014. The Student Conduct Board sent an email reminding
2

Wallis of what the NCO entails. The email also warned to never make any public comment
about the case again or else disciplinary action could be brought against Wallis. Wallis was also
asked to take down the posts on the personal page. Around this time, Wallis began seeing a
psychologist, Dr. Sage Howard. Riley had been to Pine Hill Mental Health Associates for
counseling previously and felt more comfortable with Dr. Howard than with the psychologists
provided by the school.
Morgan Miles was required to meet with the Student Conduct Board on December 12, 2015
before a hearing was held. It was advised that Miles may face expulsion or temporary
suspension if what Wallis told the Student Conduct Board about the incident was true. The
Student Conduct Board also advised Miles that dropping out of school was an option as to avoid
a record of suspension or expulsion, therefore terminating the disciplinary process. If planning
to reapply Miles would have to complete the disciplinary process.
Since, it was Christmas break beginning Monday, December 15, 2014, the case was delayed.
School resumed on January 12, 2015. On January 15, 2015 Morgan Miles was scheduled for a
hearing with the Student Conduct Board. Miles was found not guilty of sexual harassment. The
NCO was lifted and both students were allowed to resume school activity as usual.
No meetings that took place between any students involved in this case and the Student
Conduct Board were recorded. Theyinterviewed witnesses in between the time that the
complaint was made and Miles’ hearing but exact dates could not be obtained. Besides Wallis
and Miles, August Connolly, a colleague of both Wallis and Miles, was interviewed to obtain
further details about the relationship between Wallis and Miles. Miles claims that the activity
that Wallis reported is not true. Wallis may appeal the Student Conduct Board’s decision. The
Student Conduct Board may reject the appeal if no new information surfaces.
Wallis is suing Pine Hill University for negligent emotional distress, reimbursement for the
amount paid to a psychologist, and reimbursement of the tuition rate for the 2014-2015 school
year. Wallis also fears coming into contact with Miles again.
Furthermore, there is no law governing the content of NCOs which are meant to protect victims
of sexual violence from coming into contact with a perpetrator. The question is: did the
university act negligently in that the Student Conduct Board did not find Miles guilty of sexual
harassment and because of the amount of time it took for them to resolve the case?
Additional Stipulations
The parties have stipulated to the authenticity of the following items:
1. Sexual violence memorandum sent to all students and faculty of Pine Hill University of
Pennsylvania by the Title IX coordinator. Exhibit A.
3

2. Copies of the NCO sent to both Riley Wallis and Morgan Miles by the Student Conduct
Board of Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania. Exhibit B.
3. Twitter posts made by Riley Wallis. Exhibit C.
4. Reprimand letter sent to Riley Wallis by the Title IX Coordinator. Exhibit D.
5. A psychological evaluation of Riley Wallis submitted by Dr. Sage Howard and a written
letter describing said evaluation. Exhibit E.
4

Claims and Defenses
Wallis claims that Miles’ conduct created a hostile environment on Pine Hill University of
Pennsylvania’s campus and that school officials did not effectively eliminate that hostile
environment. Wallis believes the school created a hostile environment itself as well by (1) not
recording any information that came up in the Student Conduct hearings (2) the strict
provisions of the NCO (3) the unwarranted removal of the Twitter posts (4) the issuance of the
reprimand letter (5) the amount of time it took to resolve the case and (6) the false finding that
Miles was not guilty. Wallis believes that the university should be held in violation of Title IX
and wants the case to be reevaluated.
Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania claims that it did not violate Title IX as a result of (1) the
NCO (2) the reprimand letter (3) the amount of time it took to resolve the case and (4) the
finding that Miles was not guilty. The university states that the NCO is a source of protection for
students involved in sexual violence and was not meant to diminish the academic success of
any student. Investigators claim there was not enough evidence to find Morgan Miles guilty of
sexual harassment.
Relief Requested
Wallis asks the court to make a finding that Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania is in violation of
Title IX. The court is also asked to make a finding that the case regarding Wallis and Miles was
negligently mishandled. For this, Wallis requests relief for $22,450.50 which is equal to the
amount of two semester’s tuition for the 2014-2015 school year at Pine Hill University of
Pennsylvania. Additionally, Wallis requests a reimbursement of the costs for Dr. Sage Howard
which amount to $150 per session.
Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania asks the court to find that it did not violate Title IX in any
way and did not act negligently in the case involving Wallis and Miles.
5

Applicable Law
1. As indicated by Title IX:
a. Title IX protects students, employees, applicants for admission and employment,
and other persons from all forms of sex discrimination, including discrimination
based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of
masculinity or femininity. All students (as well as other persons) at recipient
institutions are protected by Title IX-- regardless of their sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, part- or full-time status, disability, race, or national origin-- in all
aspects of a recipient’s educational programs and activities (U.S. Department of
Education Office for Civil Rights).
b. Title IX prohibits sex based harassment by peers, employees, or third parties that
is sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student’s ability to participate in or
benefit from the recipient’s education programs and activities (i.e. creates a
hostile environment). When a recipient knows or reasonably should know of
possible sex-based harassment, it must take immediate and appropriate steps to
investigate or otherwise determine what occurred. If an investigation reveals
that the harassment created a hostile environment, the recipient must take
prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment,
eliminate the hostile environment, prevent the harassment from recurring, and,
as appropriate, remedy its effects (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil
Rights).
c. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX and Title
IV. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and can include
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal,
nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, such as sexual assault or acts
of sexual violence. (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights).
d. The Office of Civil Rights recommends a timeframe of 60 calendar days for
investigations to be completed but does not require it. (U.S. Department of
Education Office for Civil Rights).
2. The Campus Accountability and Safety Act amends provisions of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus
Crime Statistics to require institutions of higher education (IHEs) that participate in the
Title IV (Student Assistance) programs to include in their annual campus security reports
provided to current and prospective students and employees:
a. the memorandum of understanding that this Act requires IHEs to enter into with
local law enforcement agencies (and update, as necessary, every two years) to
clearly delineate responsibilities and share information about certain serious
6

crimes, including sexual violence, occurring against students or other individuals
on campus; and
b. specified information regarding the number of sex offenses reported to the IHE
and the IHE's disposition of sex offense cases.
3. In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff may sue for negligence if all of the following are met:
a. To maintain an action in negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant
(1) owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant failed to perform
the duty of care, (3) the failure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s
damages, and (4) the plaintiff sustained an actual loss or injury.
b. Additionally, in Pennsylvania a plaintiff may sue under the “impact rule” which
states that the plaintiff has suffered an impact to his or her body regardless of
whether the “impact” caused any physical injuries.
Case Law
1. According to the Supreme Court:
a. A school becomes legally responsible when a school’s response to sexual
harassment, “is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” (4
Davis, 526 U.S. at 648.)
b. A college or university receiving federal funding may have to pay damages to a
victim if they can show that the school acted with, “deliberate indifference to
known acts of harassment in its programs or activities.” (5 Davis, 526 U.S. at 629,
633.)
7

Witness Statements for the Plaintiff
8

Statement by Riley Wallis
My name is Riley Wallis. I am 21 years old and I attend Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania for
political science. I have a junior status and plan to graduate in May of 2017. I live just off
campus at 132 Hemlock Circle in Pine Hill, PA 15123. I live with one roommate, Casey Flannigan
who also attends Pine Hill.
Morgan Miles and I had been dating for about a month before the sexual harassment incident
happened. We met each other as sophomores at the Debate Club. We were friends for a while
but over the summer we started talking about our relationship and wanted to go further with
it. We started dating at the beginning of the 2014 school year. Morgan was so fun to be around
and got along with my friends although, would got jealous when I would hang out with my
friend August alone. We were just friends though and worked together in the Debate Club.
One Saturday night, October 4, 2014, I went out to the bar with Morgan and my friends. August
Connolly, that we both knew from Debate Club, Spencer Swanson, one of my classmates from
business law, and Dakota Flannigan, my roommate. We had hopped around a few places and
the last bar we ended up at was Bristlecone Bar and Grille. I admit the bartender was really cute
and apparently thought I was too. Morgan had had a few drinks and needed to go to the
bathroom. I sat down with the three of my friends at the bar while we waited for Morgan to
come back. In the meantime we ordered drinks. I ordered Morgan a beer and a long island iced
tea for myself. The bartender started talking to me. My friends saw that I was enjoying myself
so they let us talk to ourselves. Morgan came out of the bathroom just as the bartender was
writing a cellphone number on a napkin. I didn’t plan to do anything with the bartender but I
also didn’t say that I was already in a relationship. Morgan saw it, grabbed it out of my hand,
and ripped it to pieces. I tried to tell Morgan that it was no big deal and to just stay and sit at
the bar with us. Morgan dragged me outside.
Once we were outside, Morgan pushed me against the brick wall of the front entrance. The
push was hard and I bumped my head. It hurt. “What are you doing talking to someone else?!”
he yelled, “you know you are with me and you are mine only.” I replied, “we were just having a
conversation like two normal people. The bartender is a nice person.” In rage, Morgan called
me a “fucking slut” and stormed off. I went back inside but I didn’t want my friends to know
what happened. I told them that Morgan wasn’t feeling good and wanted to call it a night. We
finished our drinks and they walked me to my apartment.
The next morning Morgan showed up at my door, knocking loudly and repeatedly. I was so
scared so I didn’t answer the door. I heard Morgan say, “open the door Riley, I know you are in
there.” After that I received a text saying “where are you? we need to talk.” I lied and sent a
text back saying “I slept over at August’s house.” The knocking stopped. Casey woke up and
asked me what the sound was. I said that I didn’t hear anything. I avoided Morgan all that
week.
9

Apparently, Morgan was sending texts to some friends about me. One of those friends knew
me from a research writing class we both took last semester. It was Alex, whose last name I
can’t remember. Alex had my number because we worked on a project together and forwarded
some of the messages to me that Morgan was sending. They included personal information
about myself and my sexuality that I had only shared with Morgan. I had since deleted them
because I didn’t want to believe what was happening. What was Morgan hoping to gain by
spreading rumors about me? I told Alex a little about what happened but didn’t share specifics.
Alex was a good friend and understood that Morgan was just angry and ignored the messages
as well.
The whole thing was stressing me out and I skipped Debate Club that week because I had to
avoid Morgan. By Friday I couldn’t take it anymore. I wanted to meet with Morgan so this could
end but I didn’t know where our relationship was going to go. I invited Morgan to my
apartment when my roommate was gone. We sat on the couch and talked about what was
going on. “How could you share things that I have only told you?” I asked, “that stuff was
personal.” Morgan seemed really sorry and scooted closer to me on the couch, putting a hand
on my leg. I said, “Morgan, I can’t entirely forgive you. I’m not ready for this just yet.” Morgan
continued to advance and said, “come on, I thought we were all good.” I rejected Morgan’s
gestures which included intimate touching that I did not feel comfortable with. After that
Morgan got really mad and yelled, “I knew it. You slept with that bartender Saturday night.
That's why you won’t let me touch you, because you like that bartender more than me.”
Morgan got on top of me and held my wrists so I couldn’t move and said, “You are such a
whore. You are going to pay.” I was so frightened that I was going to get hit but Morgan
released the grip from my wrists, stormed out of my apartment, and slammed the front door. I
was scared for my safety. After that, I began receiving threatening texts for weeks from Morgan
but again I didn’t want to believe what was happening so I continued deleting them. I loved
Morgan. Who knows what kind of rumors others were receiving about me?
I skipped Debate Club every week after the incident because I didn’t want to come into contact
with Morgan. After several missed meetings, August texted me and asked where I had been.
The message said, “Riley, you are the vice president of the club. We need you to stay up and
running. Why are you skipping meetings?” I lied and said that I had some family issues going on
and that I was really sorry but would try to attend the next one. I’m not sure if Morgan was still
attending meetings or not.
On October 25, Morgan showed up at my apartment again. Morgan’s voice through the door
was muffled but sounded slurred, probably drunk. This occurred for several days and at random
times. I think Morgan realized that I wasn’t going to respond to this behavior and tried to
resort to force. I couldn’t hide this from Casey and I spilled the beans about what happened
that night at the bar. Casey thought that the situation was much more serious than I did and
told me to report Morgan to the Student Conduct Board under sexual harassment. At first I
denied it but after thinking about it, I realized I didn’t want to live in fear anymore so I reported
it on October 28.
10

The Student Conduct Board Officer that was on duty that day helped me fill out some
paperwork and filed the complaint. I was reluctant but the Student Conduct Officer said that
the school’s disciplinary system moves much faster than if I were to file with the Police
Department. I trusted them so I followed through with filing the complaint. On October, 30,
2014 the Student Conduct Board and I met. They issued this thing called a No-Contact Order.
They told me that I could only go to every other Debate Club meeting because Morgan also had
the right to continue participating in the club. They said it was the only fair way to work around
that issue. I didn’t know what else to do but agree with them even though the club was a very
important part of my life. I went to the Debate Club meeting later that night. I was excited to
return but I found that they became very disorganized without me and the student attendance
rate dropped significantly. Only ten students showed up that night. Normally, 30-50 students
would attend.
About a month and a half passed and the investigation was still in the beginning stages. This
frustrated me because the Debate Club was continuing to decline. Debate Club was my favorite
activity outside of school. I loved that each student had a role in the cases. We debated
important issues and were able to work together to argue our points. The fact people were
becoming disinterested made me depressed. This made me start to lose interest too. I also
could not stop thinking about Morgan. Some nights I would just sit in my room and play
everything that happened that one Saturday night over and over again instead of doing
homework. I would get so anxious that I would start hyperventilating and pass out. When I
would wake up I would tell myself it was nothing and try to move on. This made it really hard to
study and get homework done. I began to think that the whole thing was my fault. I regretted
ever reporting Morgan’s behavior.
Ever since the NCO was issued I had not heard from Morgan at all but I got so frustrated that
the case was not moving fast enough. I could not believe that the Student Conduct Board told
me they could handle it faster. I posted some stuff on the Students of Pine Hill University
Twitter page and my personal page. The first post I made was meant to encourage people in
situations of sexual violence. Even though reporting the incident to the Student Conduct Board
has caused me an immense amount of stress I wanted to encourage people to talk about any
situation dealing with sexual violence to help them realize that they are not alone. I also posted
some statistics relating to sexual violence to inform people how serious it really is. I tried to
subdue my anger about the disciplinary system at Pine Hill but eventually I tweeted about how
slow it moves. The last tweet I made before I received a letter from the Title IX coordinator was,
“My case matters!” if i recall correctly. Throughout my Twitter rant I never mentioned any
names or any information that I believed to be confidential. I just wanted to get my feelings out
there. The letter said that all of my posts had been removed from the Twitter page and forced
me to take down the posts on my page or else I would get in trouble. The letter made me feel
as if I couldn’t say anything to anyone about my situation and my depression got worse. I began
seeing Dr. Howard around that time. I didn’t trust that the school’s psychologists could help me
after experiencing the inefficiency of their system. I’ve been to Pine Hill Mental Health
11

Associates before. According to Dr. Howard, I received a diagnosis of mild PTSD, anxiety, and
depression. I was prescribed Zoloft.
On January 15, 2015 I received a phone call from the Student Conduct Board. They informed
me that there was not enough evidence to find Miles guilty. I could not believe it. I was so mad.
The next week there was a Debate Club meeting Wednesday, January, 28. I walked into the
classroom and saw Morgan sitting at a desk. Morgan gave me this sinister smile that gave me
the chills. I started to panic and ran right back out of the classroom. Everyone there was
probably confused and I felt humiliated.
Currently, I am still seeing Dr. Howard and no longer attend Debate Club in fear of running into
Morgan. I want the case to reevaluated and to receive a reimbursement of the 2014-2015
tuition rate and the amount paid to the psychologist from Pine Hill University.
I HAVE REVIEWED THE STATEMENT AND IT IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
Riley Wallis
(signature)
12

Statement By Dr. Sage Howard
To whom it may concern:
My name is Dr. Sage Howard and I am 38 years old. I am a psychologist at Pine Hill
Mental Health Associates. I have a Doctorate degree in psychology from Boston University and I
specialize in sexual violence counseling. I have been working with Riley Wallis who sought help
for dealing with stress relating to this case. Throughout multiple sessions I have conducted a
psychological assessment. The dates the observations were conducted occurred on Dec 20,
2015, January 3, 2015, and January 7, 2015.
Current Medications
Prescribed Zoloft 50mg
Family History
Wallis’ parents divorced when Wallis was approximately ten years old. Wallis is an only child.
Psychosocial History
Wallis is currently working towards a B.S. in Political Science and planned to go to graduate
school in Fall of 2017 but is worried that may be postponed due to a decline in academic
success relating to the sexual harassment Wallis has described.
Medical Examination
It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Wallis suffers from mild
post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression as a result of the incident that was
described to me. Wallis has shown post-traumatic stress in relation to the comments made by
Miles directed at Wallis and has residual anxiety about their relationship and the possibility that
they may come into contact again. Wallis has also developed depression characterized by the
lack of interest in Debate Club in which Wallis held the position of Vice President. Riley also
lacks motivation to get school work done.
Sincerely, Dr. Sage Howard Psy.D.
Dr . S. Howard
Dr. Sage Howard, Psy.D.
Pine Hill Mental Health Associates
352 Evergreen Terrace. Office #1
Pine Hill, PA 15123
13

Statement by August Connolly
My name is August Connolly and I am 22 years old. I attend Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania
and I am in my third year. My major is Criminology. I also am President of the Debate Club of
which Riley became Vice President last year.
Riley and I had known each other for about 2 years. Riley joined Debate Club as a freshman and
became Vice President as a sophomore. We were good friends ever since. Beginning a few
months ago, Riley had been acting a little off and cut off communication with me.
Riley had never missed a Debate Club meeting until last semester but began skipping almost
every week. Even though I was the President, Riley helped me lead the club. It was getting
Really disorganized. After many skipped meetings I finally sent Riley a text asking about it. Riley
replied with some story about family issues and promised it wouldn’t happen again. It did. Riley
still didn’t show up.
A few weeks later I got a call from the Student Conduct Board regarding Riley and Morgan. I
also know Morgan from debate club who also hadn’t been coming to meetings as often. They
wanted to know what I knew about their relationship but couldn’t give me details about what
happened exactly. The only information that I got was that Riley had been dealing with some
family issues. I told them that Riley was probably depressed or something. The last time I saw
Riley was on January 28th, the first Debate Club meeting of the semester. Riley finally showed
up but freaked out and left before the meeting even started.
August Connolly
(signature)
14

Witness Statements for the Defense
15

Statement by Sheridan Neumann
My name is Sheridan Neumann. I am 38 years old and have been working as the Title IX
Coordinator for the past five years at Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania. My job is to ensure
that all students in situations of sexual violence are protected and that the school complies with
the requirements of Title IX.
Riley came to the Office of Student Conduct on October 28, 2014 to file a complaint against
another student Morgan Miles, accused of sexual harassment. The officer on duty helped Riley
fill out the complaint form and filed it for review. We encourage students to file such
complaints under the university system rather than with the police department to ensure
student confidentiality.
On October 30, the Student Conduct Board, a university police officer, and I met with Riley to
discuss options. We informed Wallis about No-Contact Orders and what they entail. Regardless
of whether the reported behavior had actually occurred, we issued one as a precautionary
measure to protect both parties. Copies of the NCO were sent to both Wallis and Miles. We
required that each party attend alternating Debate Club meetings as to ensure that both parties
had fair opportunity to participate in school activities.
Riley informed us that there was no written evidence of the incident and had deleted text
messages regarding it. Wallis gave a choppy recollection of a night of drinking and an argument
with Miles. Because of the lack of hard evidence we had interviewed a third party, August
Connolly. We tried to contact Dakota Flannigan, Riley’s roommate for an interview, who
expressed discomfort in doing so. Miles denied all accusations. Connolly had no information
regarding the incident but mentioned that Wallis had stopped attending Debate Club meetings
due to family issues.
Beginning December 3, Wallis had began posting information on Twitter regarding the pending
case. I was informed of these posts by the school’s public relations officer who moderates
several Twitter pages associated with Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania. Any information
regarding cases that are still pending in the school’s judicial system cannot be made public and I
had the public relations officer remove the posts. I also issued an email to Wallis stating the
importance of confidentiality.
The investigation was delayed due to Christmas break. It was resumed January 12, 2015 and
Miles had a hearing scheduled January 15. We respect the rights of both complainants and
those accused. This means that even if a student makes a serious accusation against another
we cannot assume guilt. We also must consider the fact that complainants may fabricate
information in retaliation against other students due to conflicts that they believe are much
more serious than they really are. The Student Conduct Board and I came to the conclusion that
there was not enough evidence to find Miles guilty of sexual harassment.
16

While the investigation did take slightly longer than usual due to Christmas break, Pine Hill
University did not violate Title IX. While it recommends that investigations take no longer than
60 calendar days, it is not required. We also did not intentionally cause Wallis emotional
distress. The email issued to Wallis regarding the Twitter posts was not intended to create a
hostile environment, nor was the finding that Miles is not guilty of sexual harassment intended
to put Wallis in further danger. Miles judgement was made while considering all facts of the
case. There simply was not enough evidence present. The Student Conduct Board will not
accept an appeal unless more information surfaces regarding the case.
Sheridan Neumann
(signature)
17

Statement by Dev Chandra
My name is Dev Chandra and I am a representative from the Office for Civil Rights. The Office
for Civil Rights is an agency put in place by the U.S. Department of Education to ensure equality
in the educational environment. Title IX is a statute among many that the Office of Civil Rights
works to enforce. Its main concern is that, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of
sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Title IX applies to all institutions that receive federal funding. Pine Hill University does fall under
that category, however our agency has not found the university in violation of the statute. We
were notified about the case between Riley Wallis and Morgan Miles by the school’s Title IX
Coordinator. We investigate every school that deals with issues of sexual violence as a
precaution. Among these investigations include, proactive investigations to prevent sexual
violence and compliance reviews. We performed a compliance review on Pine Hill University in
this situation.
Our investigation of Pine Hill University involved reviewing the procedures used by the Student
Conduct Board as well as by the Title IX Coordinator and the school’s police officers assigned to
the investigation of this case. We found that witnesses had been interviewed, a NCO had been
issued, and the university ensured that both students involved were fairly allowed to
participate in school activities. This proves that the university is not in violation of Title IX. While
the Student Conduct Board did take a little longer than usual to conclude an investigation we
understand that the delay that Christmas break caused was unavoidable. We came to the same
conclusion as Pine Hill. There is simply not enough evidence to find Morgan Miles guilty of
sexual harassment.
Furthermore, Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania has always complied with the requirements of
Title IX which requires that each student and employee associated with the school must
receive notice of Title IX, what it entails, and the policies regarding sexual violence. They also
have updated the sexual violence policy each year.
Dev Chandra
(signature)
18

Exhibit A
To: [university-wide]
Cc:
Subject: Title IX memo
From: neumann@phu.edu
Sexual violence is a serious offense. Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania’s first priority is
providing a safe and healthy learning and working environment. Conduct prohibited by the Title
IX Policy, including sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence will not
be tolerated.
Examples of prohibited behavior include but are not limited to:
● Suggestive or obscene gestures
● Offensive jokes
● Physical, verbal, graphic, or written content of a sexual nature that is harmful to others
● Any physical sexual act against another person’s will or without consent
● Unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors
● Encouraging under age drinking
● Hazing on the basis of gender
● Making photographs or other forms of media of a sexual nature of another person
without consent
If you observe any such behavior or behavior not listed that you believe to be of a sexual
nature that is not consensual, you should report it to the Student Conduct Board, the
university’s Title IX Coordinator, or an adult you trust that is affiliated with Pine Hill University.
Upon the receipt of any complaint that is filed regarding sexual violence and depending on the
detail of the information provided, the university will take reasonable steps to investigate the
matter, stop any violations, and prevent them from happening again. Pine Hill University of
Pennsylvania keeps all complaints and student information confidential. The full policy on
sexual misconduct is available for viewing on the university website.
Sincerely, Sheridan Neumann, Title IX Coordinator
Sheridan Neumann
Contact Info:
Office of Student Conduct
Telephone: 724-576-3998
Address: 657 Shady Knoll, Pine Hill, PA 15123.
Title IX Coordinator
Sheridan Neumann
Telephone: 724-216-9685
Address: 1026 Loblolly Drive, Pine Hill, PA 15123.
Office: Room 311 Ponderosa Hall
20

Exhibit B
657 Shady Knoll
Pine Hill, PA 15123
Telephone: 724-576-3998
Riley Wallis
132 Hemlock Cr.
Pine Hill, Pa 15123
October 21, 2014
The Student Conduct Board of Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania is issuing No-Contact
Order between Riley Wallis and Morgan Miles. This is a precautionary measure to ensure the
safety of all parties concerning the case arising from the complaint filed by Wallis against Miles.
It is essential that all parties take the NCO seriously. This order prohibits any action which may
be reasonably assumed to result in any form of contact or communication between the parties.
Furthermore, it is prohibited to release any information regarding the case or the issued NCO.
This includes but is not limited to:
● Direct verbal communication (i.e. telephone or in person)
● Indirect verbal communication (i.e. voicemail)
● Proxy communication (i.e. messages sent via friends or other persons)
● Written communication to or about the relevant parties (i.e. texting, social
media)
● Direct contact (i.e. being in the same room or within reasonable proximity)
It is essential that both parties use best judgement in regards to the intentions of this
NCO. Any voluntary action on either party's part construed to initiate communication between
one another, to come within direct contact of one another, or any threatening actions that are
considered to fall under the category of harassment may result in further judicial action. If
either party believes that the other is in violation of this order in any way, please contact the
Title IX Coordinator immediately. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that both parties
are involved in the Debate Club. Each student must work around each other’s schedules and
attend alternating meetings.
Sincerely, Hunter White
Student Conduct Chair
H.W.
21

657 Shady Knoll
Pine Hill, PA 15123
Telephone: 724-576-3998
Morgan Miles
2938 Foxtail Lane
Pine Hill, Pa 15123
October 21, 2014
I am issuing a No-Contact Order between Riley Wallis and Morgan Miles. This is a
precautionary measure to ensure the safety of all parties concerning the case arising from the
complaint filed by Wallis against Miles. It is essential that all parties take the NCO seriously. This
order prohibits any action which may be reasonably assumed to result in any form of contact or
communication between the parties. Furthermore, it is prohibited to release any information
regarding the case or the issued NCO. This includes but is not limited to:
● Direct verbal communication (i.e. telephone or in person)
● Indirect verbal communication (i.e. voicemail)
● Proxy communication (i.e. messages sent via friends or other persons)
● Written communication to or about the relevant parties (i.e. texting, social
media)
● Direct contact (i.e. being in the same room or within reasonable proximity)
It is essential that both parties use best judgement in regards to the intentions of this
NCO. Any voluntary action on either party's part construed to initiate communication between
one another, to come within direct contact of one another, or any threatening actions that are
considered to fall under the category of harassment may result in further judicial action. If
either party believes that the other is in violation of this order in any way contact the Title IX
Coordinator immediately. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that both parties are
involved in the Debate Club. Each student must work around each other’s schedules and attend
alternating meetings.
Sincerely, Hunter White
Student Conduct Chair
H.W.
22

Exhibit C
Riley Wallis @rileysroom @studentsofpinehill
Encouraging survivors of sexual violence to speak up and get help. People will listen #survivors
#fightsexualviolence Dec. 3. 2014. 1:00pm.
Riley Wallis @rileysroom @studentsofpinehill
1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college. #fightsexualviolence Dec.
3. 2014. 1:05pm.
Riley Wallis @studentsofpinehill
The disciplinary system does not move fast enough here. Told me it would be faster than going
to the police. #hurtingvictimsnothelping Dec. 5. 2014. 12:22pm.
Riley Wallis @studentsofpinehill
My case matters! Dec. 8. 2014. 4:32pm.
23

Exhibit D
Dec. 10. 2014 9:30am
To: rwallis@phu.edu
Cc:
Subject: Title IX memo
From: neumann@phu.edu
Dear Ms. Wallis,
I have received a report that information about your pending case was released on the
Students of Pine Hill University Twitter page as well as on your personal page. As we discussed,
confidentiality is incredibly important to the school’s judicial process. Please make sure that
you take all reasonable steps to ensure that the confidentiality of all parties involved in this
case is maintained. Furthermore, please refrain from posting any more information about the
case onto the Internet. The post you made has since been deleted for confidentiality reasons. If
there is any other violation of the no-contact order on your part, you may face disciplinary
action. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call my office.
Sincerely, Sheridan Neumann, Title IX Coordinator
Sheridan Neumann
Telephone: 724-216-9685
Address: 1026 Loblolly Drive, Pine Hill, PA 15123.
Office: Room 311 Ponderosa Hall
24

Exhibit E
Pine Hill Mental Health Associates
352 Evergreen Terrace Office #1 Dr. Sage Howard Psy.D.
Pine Hill, PA 15123 Dr. Avery Moriarty M.S.W.
Date: 2/4/15 Dr. Cameron Pritchard Ph.D.
Psychological Assessment Form
First Name: Riley Male Female Other ✔
Last Name: Wallis Client Address: 132 Hemlock Cr. Pine Hill, Pa 15123
DOB (mm/dd/yy): 06/11/1994 Evaluator: Dr . S. Howard
Reason for Assessment:
psych. eval. relating to sexual harassment case.
Diagnosis:
Anxiety ✔ Eating Disorder Personality Disorder
type: type: type:
ADHD/ADD OCD Schizophrenia
ASD PTSD ✔ other:
Depression ✔ Panic Disorder
type:
Comments:
Riley has shown signs of mild PTSD expressed in the frequent
recollection of the sexual harassment received from Morgan Miles
causing anxiety and depression characterized by irritability and
inability to concentrate.
Prescription: Zoloft 50 mg
25

Annotated Bibliography
Bell, Donna, and Karen Rouse. “Classroom Law Project Mock Trial Workshop.” Classroom Law.
Classroom Law Project, 21 June 2013. Web. 18 Sept. 2015.
This source is a workshop for understanding mock trials. First, it talks about vocabulary
that could be used in the courtroom and provides an exercise to understanding possible
vocabulary words that will be used in the prospective trial. The exercise asks students to
define the words in their own terms. It then prompts group discussion on writing
witness statements. This section provides students with questions to answer and asks
them to write and perform their own brief witness statement. They are then asked to
reflect on the witness statements. Reflections can include information on how
believable the statements were, whether or not they sympathize with the witness, etc.
The same exercises are provided for opening and closing statements and templates for
writing are provided. They are also asked to think of cross examination questions and
are provided with rubrics and self assessment worksheets.
This source is helpful in writing a mock trial because it provides templates on writing
each piece of a mock trial. It is also helpful to reference an extensive lesson plan which
provides expectations of the students and what a good mock trial consists of.
Campus Accountability and Safety Act, § 590 (Library of Congress 2015). Print.
This act set out by Congress states that all universities receiving federal funding must
report all serious crimes annually. They also must send a memorandum to all student
and faculty regarding their policies on sexual violence. This act also acts as a guideline
line for universities as to what to include in their sexual violence policies.
In my case Pine Hill University is being examined by the Office for Civil Rights. They must
provide that they sent a memorandum to all students and faculty regarding their
particular sexual violence policies in order to not be found guilty of violating Title IX.
Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act. 20 USC. 2013. Print.
This act is an update to the Jeanne Clery Act. Its amendments require that all students
receive a report of all crimes that occurred on campus each year and a policy regarding
sexual assault.
I will use this act in the applicable laws section of my mock trial. It also helps me further
understand the Clery Act and shows that improvements were made to it.
Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 USC. Sec. 2000. 1964. Print.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination based on sex,
religion, race, color, or national origin. It is also a main source that was used when
writing Title IX.
This statute is the original source of protection for the types of discrimination listed
above in the United States. Before this bill was passed many minorities were unfairly
26

discriminated against. I will use this law in the applicable laws section for my mock trial
as it can be cited in almost any case involving discrimination.
Cover, Marilyn, and Susan Marcus. “Manual for Mock Trial.” Classroom Law. Classroom Law
Project, 2009. Web. 18 Sept. 2015.
This source is an entire manual on conducting a mock trial that includes extensive
information on what to expect. Some of this information includes vocabulary, practice
scripts, instructions on creating stories, mock trial topics, and much more.
This source provides in-depth explanations on every aspect of a trial and provides ideas
for writing mock trials. This manual is unique in that it provides expectations of all the
parties in the courtroom and advice on how to prepare for your trial.
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed. U.S. Supreme Court. 1999. Print.
This case set precedent for many cases to follow relating to sexual violence in the
educational environment. It stated that a school becomes legally responsible when a
school’s response to sexual harassment, “is clearly unreasonable in light of the known
circumstances.” Furthermore, a college or university receiving federal funding may have
to pay damages to a victim if they can show that the school acted with, “deliberate
indifference to known acts of harassment in its programs or activities.”
I will also use this case as precedent for Wallis v. Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania and
include excerpts in the applicable law section.
“Free Mock Trials.” Street Law. Street Law, n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
Street Law is a website that provides mock trials for high schools to use that were used
in previous mock trial cases written by high school teachers. It provides a long list of
both civil and criminal trials. Every trial starts with a statement of stipulated facts which
provides the jury specifically with the known facts of the case. Next, it states the charges
that are being brought against the defendant and whether they admit or deny the
charges. It then provides a list of the witnesses for both the plaintiff and defendant and
any further stipulations. Additional stipulations often state any additional evidence that
was submitted by experts pertaining to the case. Applicable laws are then listed. These
laws are not made up. Summaries of case law that are related to the case being tried are
also provided. Then, statements from each witness and the defendant are given which
provide an account of what each person involved in the case knows. Often in witness
statements the stories purposefully don’t add up. This adds dimension and whether or
not the defendant is guilty is left unexplained. Lastly, mock trials will provide
fictionalized evidence of the case.
I will use the examples of the mock trials to structure my own. These trials are helpful
because they are in depth and true to how a real life trial would go. They use real laws
that are brought against real criminals and the cases include events that could happen
in your everyday life.
Henrick, Stephen. “A Hostile Environment for Student Defendants: Title IX and Sexual Assault
on College Campuses.” Northern Kentucky Law Review: n. pag. Print.
27

Henrick argues that colleges are too quick to convict those accused of sexual assault
that may be innocent. While I disagree with this statement and think that colleges are
taking too little action, the author explains why school discipline systems are ineffective.
The Office for Civil Rights has the job of enforcing Title IX. While Title IX was never
intended to cover sexual violence a book written by Catharine Mackinnon and published
in 1979 argued that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. Eventually, the
OCR added sexual harassment by school employees and later between students to be
prohibited under Title IX. Since 1997, this agency has not put effort into enforcing Title
IX and making sure that hearings are “equitable” and “impartial.” OCR has the right to
withdraw all federal funding from a school that violates any part of Title IX. This gives
schools an incentive to over-convict, while going through the minimal amount of
investigation possible.
I believe that while schools may revoke academic rights from those convicted, they
should not be allowed to hear sexual assault cases or any criminal case for that matter,
and instead students should go through a court system. The author argues that since
courts don’t have financial incentives to convict or acquit they may judge properly
unlike a college disciplinary system. Also, jurors don’t have direct ties to a student's
future career and may fairly produce a verdict. Furthermore, courts don’t have a
reputation to protect unlike many universities that try to cover up information regarding
sexual violence in order to maintain their image. This article gives me a full scope of
what exactly Title IX consists of and its history and involvement in higher education.
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, comp. Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence Policy. N.p.:
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2014. Print.
I wanted to compare Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s sexual misconduct policy with
other school policies that have been accused of mishandling sexual assault cases. It does
not state anything about a no-contact policy which is a mandate that other schools have
issued to both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault. While no-contact orders
protect the victim from coming into contact with the perpetrator it also prohibits the
victim from talking about the issue with anyone else except designated school officials
making students feel fear of being punished themselves. In my opinion, IUP has a very
well thought out sexual assault and violence policy.
Comparing this policy with others gives me a sense of what a good sexual misconduct
policy looks like and what a bad one looks like. I want to use examples of sexual
misconduct policies from varying schools to create a policy for my own mock trial.
Jeanne Clery Act. 20 USC. Sec. 1092. 1990 and Supp. 2008. Print.
This act named after Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old who was raped and murdered in her
dorm in 1986, requires all college campuses that participate in federal financial aid
programs to report all crimes on or off campus if associated with the school. Penalties
can be up to $35,000 for each violation.
I may use this particular law in the applicable laws section of my mock trial. This act also
helps me gain an understanding of what a University may face if they handle sexual
assault inappropriately.
28

Kingkade, Tyler. “Columbia Students Say University Made Missteps In Multiple Sexual Assault
Cases.” The Huffington Post 15 June 2015: n. pag. Print.
This article explores the insensitivity Colombia University in New York, has shown when
dealing with sexual assault cases that involve LGBTQ students. During an investigation,
investigators showed outward discomfort in talking about a sexual assault case with a
victim who identified as gay who went by the name Zachary. It takes great responsibility
and open-mindedness to be an investigator of sexual assault and the school officials
assigned to this particular case proved to be improperly trained. Furthermore, title IX
requires sexual assault investigations to be started within 60 days but this particular
student’s case did not get investigated until seven months later. Many other students at
Colombia University have experienced the same investigative misconduct. Another
astonishing aspect of this case is that the school had interviewed the perpetrator’s
witnesses but none which would show that Zachary was in fact a victim of sexual
assault. The school also has a policy that it will not write down or record any
information dealing with criminal investigations.
I will draw from this article the behavior of school officials when creating characters for
my mock trial. My particular case deals with the school as a defendant and a victim of
sexual assault the plaintiff. I want to show how schools across the country are
improperly dealing with sexual assault cases to show how important it is to change
current policies.
- - -. “When Colleges Threaten to Punish Students Who Report Sexual Assault.” The Huffington
Post 22 July 2015: n. pag. Print.
Colombia University had placed a no contact order between a student who was a victim
of sexual assault and her abusive boyfriend despite the fact that she never talked to
school officials about the incident and continued to spend time with him. In retrospect
she realizes that her boyfriend was dangerous but she was so afraid to go to school
officials because by continuing to be around him she was in violation of the no contact
order and could face punishment herself. Universities across the country are
threatening victims with suspension and are prohibiting them to talk to anyone outside
school administration about their sexual assault experiences for support.
The fact that victims of sexual assault have the potential to be punished and are
restricted from expressing their feelings is a significant topic that society deals with
today. My mock trial scenario draws from the scenario posed in this article and will
explore the pressure students feel because of the no contact orders that universities are
putting on students that are intended to protect but has proven to have the opposite
effect. Students often refer to these as “gag-orders.”
National Constitution Center. “Writing a Mock Trial: An Instructional Framework.” National
Constitution Center. National Constitution Center, n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
This lesson plan was designed for students as a framework for writing a mock trial.
Though it is geared towards younger students it provides a simplified framework for
creating a mock trial. First it asks students to review a piece of literature that contains a
conflict that could be used in a courtroom. Next, it asks students to write laws that
29

could apply to the literature. Students must think about their invented laws in terms of
how easy it is to understand, whether or not it applies equally to everyone in the case,
and how it could be enforced. The lesson plan also explains the differences of civil and
criminal cases and how writing a mock trial changes depending on which kind of case
you choose. A rubric for an opening statement and instructions for writing a closing
statement are also provided.
I will use the article as a reference for structuring my own mock trial. It is also helpful to
think about how mock trials are taught and conducted in the classroom.
Rawle & Henderson,, LLP. "Pennsylvania State Law Summary 2015." Rawle & Henderson, LLP.
Rawle & Henderson, LLP, n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.
In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff may sue for negligence if all of the following are met: To
maintain an action in negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant (1) owed
a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant failed to perform the duty of care,
(3) the failure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages, and (4) the plaintiff
sustained an actual loss or injury. Additionally, in Pennsylvania a plaintiff may sue under
the “impact rule” which states that the plaintiff has suffered an impact to his or her
body regardless of whether the “impact” caused any physical injuries.
In Wallis v. Pine Hill University of Pennsylvania, Wallis sues the university for negligent
infliction of emotional distress. I used this law as a guideline to determine whether or
not Wallis suffered emotional distress.
Title IX. 20 USC. 1972. Print.
Title IX is the main law governing sexual discrimination be it in the workplace, at school,
etc. It is included in all syllabi and distributed to all students at universities across the
country.
Since the definition of sexual misconduct in Title IX is so widely accepted this will be the
main law that my mock trial will revolve around. It will also be used as evidence since all
public universities are required to distribute literature including Title IX to its students.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Title IX Resource Guide (Apr. 2015).
This resource is the updated guidelines for Title IX. It covers definitions of sexual
misconduct, procedures that should be taken when reporting and dealing with sexual
misconduct, student interests, etc.
This resource guide will help me fully understand what Title IX aims to promote and how
it suggests action should be taken. While the law itself is not at fault problems arise
when school put their own interpretations into Title IX.
30

Copyoffinal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Similar to Copyoffinal

Similar to Copyoffinal (20)

More from Selena Mattei

More from Selena Mattei (8)

Copyoffinal