Virginia Wesleyan College Demands Names Of Rape Victim's Sexual Partners
Source: TalkingPointsMemo.com
Virginia Wesleyan College is asking for the names of a rape victim’s boyfriends and sexual partners since her rape in August 2012 as part of a filling in the victim's civil suit against the college, the Huffington Post reported Monday.
In the June filing in Norfolk Circuit Court in Virginia, the school wrote: “Given the significance of these claims in a case where $10 million is at issue, VWC feels compelled to explore Plaintiff’s sexual history.”
The school said it wanted to talk to her first partner after the assault to confirm the "trauma she claimed to have endured after being raped," according to the Huffington Post.
The woman is suing the college as Jane Doe and is seeking $10 million in damages from the liberal arts school.
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/virginia-wesleyan-college-rape-victims-partners
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If she had a dozen consensual partners a night every night, it would in no way diminish the trauma of being raped once.
Someone at Virginia Wesleyan needs fired.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Do you think it would have an impact on claiming damages of $10M premised on "inability to have sex"?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It's not any of their business whether or not she's 'unable to have sex'.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If it's not any of their business, then why is she holding them responsible for it to the tune of $10M?
Lawsuits are not a scratch-off lottery with random prizes. If you want $1M, then you have to show that you have been injured to the tune of $1M. She's premised damages of $10M based on a loss of interest in sex and inability to have sex.
But, instead, you are saying that it should be ten million, just because it should be ten million. Not five million, that would be too little. Not twenty million, that would be too much.
If you and I are in a car accident, and I sue you for a million dollars because I allege the accident resulted in permanent loss of the use of my hand, then is it "your business" whether I can use my hand?
Her lawsuit claims it IS their business, and that's why they owe her ten million dollars.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is it any of your business whether me and my wife have sex, or how frequently we have sex?
Yes or no?
Now, one day, one of your employees is driving a delivery truck. My wife and I are driving down the road. Your employee gets drunk and runs through a stop sign and hits our car. My hip is broken in the accident.
You fire the employee.
I now sue you because your employee got drunk and hit our car.
My damages break down as follows:
1. Emergency medical expenses - $100,000
2. Lost income for the time spent recovering - $50,000
3. Pain and suffering - $300,000
4. Loss of consortium because the hip injury has made it painful to have sex, and we no longer have sex - $8M
Now, let me ask you again. Is it your business whether I can have sex?
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)Will judge allow?
Novara
(5,845 posts)So there's a dollar value on ignoring rape shield laws now? $10 million?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Was she raped by the university?
cstanleytech
(26,306 posts)civil cases which is what this is and its why the lawyers for the university will probably be allowed by the courts to proceed with this, sucks but it is what it is 
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The school did not make it an issue. Her damage claim makes it an issue.
cstanleytech
(26,306 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The screaming headline, combined with general ignorance of what this lawsuit is about, has precisely the effect on settlement that it is expected to have.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Say if someone claimed an injury which left them barely able to walk and then they are filmed running a marathon.
She could still suffer PTSD but don't make a claim that is so easily disproved.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Leaving aside the question of whether the college is liable....
Let's assume the college is liable for the behavior of the peer counselor involved.
She is likely claiming a range of damages for various things.
Yes, she may have PTSD and a number of other things going on. But a big chunk of the $10M is premised on the claim that she is unable to have normal sexual relations.
This is not the college making her sexual history relevant to whether she was raped. This is about her claiming that she is unable to have sexual relations, while refusing discovery requests relevant to the claim.
It does set up a significant problem for the college, which can be leveraged for a better settlement, because headlines and slim stories about it make the college look awful - because the assumption is that the college is seeking sexual history for the purpose of disproving rape.
That's not even an issue in this case. The college found the student responsible for sexual misconduct and expelled him.
They aren't denying she was raped. They are denying they owe her $10M.
yardwork
(61,680 posts)People are reading this headline and reaching their own conclusions.
Universities are poorly prepared to deal with sexual assaults on their campuses.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Poorly prepared or not, colleges and universities have to have an internal system for trying rape cases. They found the other student responsible and expelled him.
This is slightly different from that context. Because the perp was a peer counselor, and thus an employee, the university is being held liable on that basis.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)damages have to be proven, the liability has to be proven and there has to be a proximate cause.
One cannot just take a number of $10 million out of somewhere and get away with it without proving. It is the fundamental basis of our adversarial legal system.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)father they would bring in all your sex partners to prove that you did not deserve help. IMO that is one of the biggest reasons why so many women supported women's liberation.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)The defendants' attorneys are asking for this.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)How are the "defendants' attorneys" somehow separate from the defendant?
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)The relevance depends on how she claims her trauma manifested.
One needs to avoid being led astray by the nature of the claimed tort. Rape is no different from assault when it comes to proof of damage.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Even if past sexual partners could testify, I don't know how they could properly interpret "trauma" from a legal standpoint...
But let's call this what it is -- VWC is hoping they find a sexual partner willing to say the plaintiff had some deviant or alternative kinks, which gives them the opening to throw the whole thing out...
cstanleytech
(26,306 posts)and not rollover and play dead and in this case that means they are going investigate her past as it potentially could have a bearing on her case and on any settlement they might offer her and her lawyers.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It is her claim that, since the event, she is unable to have sex.
Now, having a lot of emotional problems around sex and requiring psychological counseling are compensable damages. But the $10M figure seems to be premised on an inability to have normal sex.
This discovery request has nothing to do with "painting her as a slut" to avoid liability on the underlying claim (based on the school's part time employment of the student in question, who was expelled). The discovery request has to do with the damages attributable to the claim that she is unable to have sex.
Warpy
(111,305 posts)to testify as to her mental state afterward. Calling for all partners in the last 3 years is pure slut shaming and I hope the judge throws that out.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This request most likely goes to the damage claim, not to liability.
There are two components of a civil suit:
1. Is the defendant liable for any harm to the plaintiff, and
2. How much?
If, for example, the defendant is claiming that the trauma made it difficult or impossible to have intimate relations, and that is a component of the amount of money she is claiming, then whether it did or not is a question relevant to that damage claim.
What, in your knowledge, went into the $10M figure.
Why is it not $1M?
Why is it not $100M?
This is not a criminal trial in which a defendant is using "she's loose" as a defense to rape.
I assume it's pretty clear that she was not raped by the school. She is claiming that the school owes her money.
Warpy
(111,305 posts)I don't know all the particulars (or many of them), but it seems she's holding the school liable for not providing a safe place to live and study, for not taking her rape seriously, or for not expelling a rapist who was convicted and who later raped her.
The amount she's suing for probably came out of the lawyer's butt and if the school did something wrong and she gets it, it will be reduced on appeal to a year of two of intensive therapy money.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes, but that's not how it works, even at the trial level, to actually get a damage award.
How damages are tallied up, and what is required to prove up damages, are probably the most misunderstood part of civil procedure generally, since all people ever see are headlines of "So-and-so hit the lawsuit lottery."
It's like this....
I run into your car. You get hurt and miss work for three days. You sue me for your medical expenses and lost wages. Those are readily calculable, and lets assume you don't have any lingering strains, sprains, and so on.
Now, let's say that, on top of that, you claim that you have been psychologically affected by an inordinate fear of getting into a car. You have received psychological counseling to help you with that, but this autophobia you've developed as a consequence of the accident is a continuing condition that grossly impairs your life, because you get cold sweats and freak out every time you think about getting into a car. This has dramatically impacted your ability to function normally.
If you can prove up THAT, then you might be in line for a good chunk of change for both the effects and treatment of that condition.
But, even though, yes, there is no question I'm liable for the injuries to you from the car collision, it's not like you get an award of damages for the claimed psychological consequences just on your say-so.
That's not how it works at all. You have to prove up your damages at the trial court, even before an appellate court gets their hands on it.
This news article is completely devoid of what the theory of liability or the categories of damages being sought, so it makes for good DU drama. Half the people who read it will think it is a criminal trial in which her sex life is being made an issue by the defendant.
But, based on the little information available, the reason why the school would be seeking that kind of evidence - on the damages question - isn't because they are making it an issue, but most likely because the plaintiff made it an issue in their damages computation.
Going back to the car thing, you can put on your shrink who says, "Yeah, he's really scared about getting into cars", but that's not conclusive evidence on your damages claim. It should be pretty clear who my lawyer is going to want to talk to about whether you've had any evident issues with cars.
In a civil trial you have to prove both (1) that the defendant is liable for anything, and (2) the extent of damages for which the defendant is liable.
Just based on the scant information in the article, it is not hard to guess at what is being claimed in the way of damages, and why the school's request for discovery might be relevant.
But, on top of that, you always have settlement discussions going on on the background of any lawsuit. So, the article itself plays into this with a kind of brinksmanship of "do you want to be painted as leering perverts on this damage claim, or do you want to negotiate a different number?" And, as the thread demonstrates, it is an effective strategy.
On edit: here it is from the longer Huffpo piece:
"As noted in the motion, Miss Doe is seeking money damages based in part on the following claims: she is unable to have sex, does not have any interest in sex, and has experienced difficulties in romantic relationships due to her inability to have sex and lack of interest in sex,"
That is part of her damages claim. Is anyone allowed to ask whether it is true?
yardwork
(61,680 posts)Over and over, I learn from your careful, patient posts. DU is fortunate to have you as s regular poster.
eggplant
(3,912 posts)Nothing more. The judge will decide the merits of the request.
lark
(23,138 posts)Why the hell are subsequent sex partners being called into play here. That's just totally absurd and in line with other colleges slut-shaming anyone who dares to tell them "I've been raped". I was so worred when my daughter had some night classes and had to walk quite a ways in the dark to get to her car. A parent shouldn't have to worry so much, schools should do the right thing instead of always, always siding with the attacker and treating the victim like a criminal. It's just totally sickening. Add this to the list of colleges no woman should attend for fear of her personal safety. Obviously, they don't give a shit and are just trying to punish the young woman involved.
Shameful, totally shameful!!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Most likely because the lawsuit is demanding damages which includes a component based on prospective psychological consequences.
In other words, because the plaintiff made it an issue in the damages claim.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)What bunch of assholes. Compelled?
This is just legal slut shaming.
7962
(11,841 posts)
irisblue
(33,011 posts)Novara
(5,845 posts)her sexual partners. Because if they're only looking at sex partners, it's clear slut shaming.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"As noted in the motion, Miss Doe is seeking money damages based in part on the following claims: she is unable to have sex, does not have any interest in sex, and has experienced difficulties in romantic relationships due to her inability to have sex and lack of interest in sex,"
How would talking to her family establish that claim in this suit?
Novara
(5,845 posts)Again, if they're only questioning her sex partners, it looks like slut shaming.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...due to an inability to have sex.
That's why she's asking for $10M.
If your point is that they should be looking for a broader range of witnesses to prove or disprove that claim, then I'm not sure what is your objection.
The plaintiff is entitled to produce any witnesses they want, but when the damages are based on an alleged "inability to have sex", then it is something of a relevant question.
I don't understand what you mean by "only questioning her sex partners". The plaintiff can put on all kinds of people, if they want, to say, "She can't have sex" or whatever else, including close friends or anyone who might have something relevant to say about it.
But if a component of the damage claim is "she can't have sex", then there shouldn't be any "sex partners".
This isn't a criminal trial, where a rape defendant is trying to say "she was a slut anyway". This is a civil lawsuit where the plaintiff is alleging an inability to have sex, and asking for $10M because of that.
In that situation, what do you think a court should or should not be able to consider as evidence on the question of whether she has been able to have sex since the event?
The court should just say, "Okay, that's that, ten million dollars it is."
ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)It feels like "slut shaming" but there's no other way for them to investigate the injury she's alleging. She had to understand that when she agreed to the lawsuit. If not, her lawyers should have explained it.
niyad
(113,494 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)examine your own execs and BOD's sexual history, that should be fun!
LynnTheDem
(21,368 posts)rape??!
WTF is WRONG with (way too many) people???!!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If you are claiming $10M in damages from someone who, incidentally, is NOT the rapist; and you are claiming that $10M because you allege that you are unable to have sexual relations since the rape happened, then it is kind of relevant to your $10M whether or not you have been unable to have sexual relations.
LynnTheDem
(21,368 posts)Fair point. In theory.
People lie, so no proof that she did or didn't if she had any such partners. I would think the people who are relevant would be her medical team.
But I am glad to learn it isn't a criminal rape trial demanding sexual history info, at least., thanks for explaining.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It's not about whether a rape occurred.
The request is about her claim for damages premised on inability to have sex - i.e. that she is saying the school owes her a big chunk of that ten million dollars because she has lost interest in sex and is unable to have sex.
In other words, she is seeking compensation for psychological injury in the form of having lost interest in sex (among whatever other damages she may be seeking).
The defense is not looking for her sexual history to show "she was a slut, and therefore not raped".
The defense is looking to ask her partners SINCE the event "did she lose interest in sex and was she unable to have sex."
Absolutely, the plaintiff will call her psychologist in relation to her condition, but if she is claiming an inability to carry on normal romantic relations, then it's kind of relevant to ask someone who might be in a better position than her psychologist to establish that.
In a motion first filed in June in Norfolk Circuit Court, the college asked for the woman to name any individual she had sexual intercourse with "at any time" and for the names of all her boyfriends since August 2012, when she said she was raped. The woman's attorney, Jonathan Halperin, spent several weeks this summer disputing the college's request to no avail.
The woman is suing Virginia Wesleyan under the pseudonym Jane Doe because she alleges a student employed by the college as a peer adviser provided her possibly-drugged alcohol on the night she was assaulted by another male classmate. He was found responsible for sexual misconduct and expelled in 2013, but the college changed his status on his transcript from "expelled" to "voluntarily withdrawn" in order to "assist him in seeking further studies," according to a letter Doe received from a dean.
So the court should order the college to fork over $10M because she says she is unable to have sex, and asking whether she has in fact had sex is out of bounds.
LynnTheDem
(21,368 posts)be the best people to answer that? Psychiatrist, psychologist, etc?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is she carrying on one with her psychologist?
hack89
(39,171 posts)She is suing for $10 million. It is all about her sexual history.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)It does not appear that the college is contesting the actual rape, but since she is asking for 10 million bucks due to having lost all interest in sex, there should not be any sexual partners since 2012.
She's the one making the claim, she's the one who will have to back it up. She shouldn't get 10 mill based on her say so and the college is entitled to explore the veracity of her claim.
