1 August 12, 2015 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Subject: Virginia Wesleyan College Litigation Update Norfolk/Virginia Beach, Virginia August 12, 2015 As legal counsel for Virginia Wesleyan College, we feel it is appropriate to communicate the following in response to recent news reports about the Jane Doe v. Virginia Wesleyan College v. Robert Roe lawsuit. Several journalists and reporters have taken the time to review court filings, attend hearings, request independent legal analysis, and have made other efforts to impartially report on the case. Unfortunately, other sources have published inaccurate or misleading stories, leading to a rush to judgment on the part of some readers and viewers. While the College is still limited in its ability to disclose case-related information, we wish to address some of the misinformation that has recently been circulated. Several recent articles and reports continue to reference claims by J ane Doe that the College failed to sufficiently warn or protect her from rape and sexual assault. Notably, one day before the alleged incident occurred, the College warned J ane Doe and all other first-year students about precisely these dangers. Independent of such warnings, the court dismissed J ane Doe's claims on this matter on J uly 30, 2015. Nevertheless, the lawsuit continues on a number of other theories, including the theory that the College should be responsible for the student peer advisors alleged conduct and the theory that the College intentionally underreports campus crime statistics. As has been the case from the onset of this lawsuit, the College denies any such allegations or any other wrongdoing. Regarding our requests for information about J ane Does relationships, we want to be clear that we have no intention of arguing J ane Doe is of unchaste character and therefore must have done something wrong. As the Colleges recent court filing indicates, the basis for the request was that J ane Doe has made various claims for monetary damages related in part to her failed relationships. We want to make sure we have properly evaluated these claims. J ane Does attorneys have agreed the College is entitled to discovery of J ane Does claimed damages, and the parties are currently working together to resolve this issue. As a result of the request for information about J ane Does relationships, the College has been accused of blaming the victim. These accusations could not be further from the truth. In fact, 2 because we felt that J ane Doe was using discovery documents to influence the media and public, the College, over J ane Does objection, obtained a protective order from the court that prevents the sharing of discovery documents with third-parties having no interest in the lawsuit. This protective order prevents the sharing of J ane Does responses to the requested discovery. We do not wish to harass or embarrass J ane Doe or any members of the College community, and we certainly dont want to prolong this matter. Importantly, however, the College very strongly disagrees with J ane Doe seeking $10 million in damages from the College for an alleged assault by another student. As such, the College has gone about preparing a defense just as any defendant would do in any other civil lawsuit. Some have argued the College should simply accept responsibility and compensate J ane Doe for whatever she claims. As previously noted, however, the College does not believe it did anything to cause or contribute to the alleged sexual assault of J ane Doe. Moreover, and with the full cooperation of the College, after investigating J ane Does allegations, the Virginia Beach Police Department found insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against Robert Roe. Given the lack of any physical evidence, the conflicting accounts of the encounter between J ane Doe and Robert Roe, and the decision of the Virginia Beach Police Department, it is premature to come to any conclusions regarding what happened between J ane Doe and Robert Roe. This determination should be left to the jury after all the evidence has been presented. Any thought that the College is responsible for the lack of evidence against Robert Roe is also unfounded. Contrary to J ane Does allegations, the College repeatedly informed J ane Doe, who waited approximately two months before reporting the incident, of all her options, including the option to report the matter to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. J ane Doe repeatedly refused to report the matter, and privacy laws (which have since been modified) prohibited the College from going to law enforcement over J ane Does objection. With respect to the claims regarding the student peer advisor (who was not J ane Does peer advisor), a number of points require clarification. J ane Doe has not alleged that the student peer advisor raped or sexually assaulted her, served her a spiked drink, or had any knowledge that spiked drinks were being served (if they were being served). Nevertheless, J ane Doe believes the student peer advisor (and the College) should be held responsible, regardless of his knowledge or lack thereof, because she allegedly received a spiked drink at his townhouse. The College respectfully disagrees with this claim. Finally, it should be noted that, contrary to J ane Does allegations, student peer advisors are not employees of the College. They do not receive any monetary compensation for their services. They merely receive an hour of course credit for performing such tasks as checking attendance, grading assignments, assisting with leading classes and workshops, and responding to questions from other students. Student peer advisors are informed about the Colleges alcohol policy. The student peer advisor denies the allegation that there was a party, and, in any event, privately held student parties are neither part of a peer advisors College duties nor are they sponsored by the College. 3 We understand that some will continue to disagree with the positions we have taken. We also understand that it may be difficult to put all of the discovery requests and legal proceedings in context without more complete information. In response, we note that the J ane Doe lawsuit is quite complex, represents an unfounded attack upon the College, and there are significant details that likely will not be made public until trial. However, it is our intent to defend this case, through measured and appropriate legal processes, to its conclusion.