The plaintiff, who goes by "Jane Doe" in court documents, sued the government, former West Point superintendent Lt. Gen. Franklin Hagenbeck (now retired) and a former commandant of cadets, then-Brig. Gen. William Rapp, now the two-star commandant of the Army War College, in 2013. The suit alleges that the general officers failed in their mandatory duties to address sexual assault and harassment issues at the academy, including failing to "correct offensive conduct" or address a pervasive culture of inappropriate sexual behavior, ranging from incidents of improper touching of female cadets to cadet songs featuring sexually charged "violent language," documents show.

In ruling on a defense motion to dismiss all charges, District Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said the plaintiff "has sufficiently alleged rampant hostility toward, and discrimination against, women at West Point," as well as sufficiently alleging that the named officers "knowingly allowed such practices to continue in violation of statutory obligations," to allow the case to continue.

While the judge upheld the claims under the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause, Hellerstein dismissed all claims against the U.S. government that cited other statutes, removing the government from the suit as a defendant. He also dismissed claims against the general officers under the Constitution's due process clause, under which the plaintiff had alleged the sexually hostile environment created by the officers led to her rape and resignation, the ruling states.

Despite the dismissals, one of the three law students working on the case for the Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services Clinic, which represents Doe, called the ruling "a significant victory."

"Judge Hellerstein correctly determined that our client alleged a legal wrong," Katie Wynbrandt said in an email Thursday, "and we are confident that she will prove her allegations in the subsequent phases of litigation."

A West Point spokesman said the academy was forwarding all requests for comment to the U.S. attorney's office for New York's southern district. A spokesman there declined to comment on the ruling, which was first reported by Reuters.

The plaintiff resigned from the academy in August 2010, three months after the alleged sexual assault by an unnamed male cadet and shortly before beginning her third year at the academy. Had she resigned after beginning her third year, she would've incurred an obligation either to enlist or repay the federal government for her education.

Hellerstein noted this in his ruling, saying that "[n]ot every complaint by a female service person against her commander gives rise to an equal protection argument to invoke the jurisdiction of the district courts," but that the court had jurisdiction because of the plaintiff's status as an unobligated student.

About Kevin Lilley

Kevin Lilley is the features editor of Military Times.

Share:
In Other News
Load More