Cornell Frat Bro Loses Lawsuit Against University Over Attempted Sexual Exploitation Punishment

One of the men being sued over an alleged 2024 gang rape at Cornell University sued the college last March over the consequences he was hit with for the incident, TMZ has learned, and just days ago he lost his case.

John Doe sued Cornell over the investigation conducted into the alleged rape that took place on October 19, 2024, at the Chi Phi fraternity house.

According to legal docs, Doe says he received the Snapchat message — “Free P***y” — and he and one other frat brother went to the room … he says because they were unsure if the message was a joke or not.

He also says he went there to get a new vape. He says “By no means were we going there to get free p***y.” He says when they arrived “Everybody in there seemed fine.”

He claimed he was not given the chance to properly defend himself at the University’s disciplinary hearing … because they brought “charges” of sexual exploitation but only found him responsible for attempted sexual exploitation.

The disciplinary panel found by responding to the Snapchat message and going up to the room, that constituted attempted sexual exploitation.

He said he had no idea attempted sexual exploitation was even a possible result and that, had he known, he would have employed a different strategy.

During the disciplinary hearing, the alleged victim — Jane Doe — testified the 2 men were like “voyeurs” because “they were just looming.”

Jane says that at the time the 2 men were in the room, she was under a sheet at times and “she had no specific recollection of whether John Doe saw her naked when she stood up, or if he snorted ketamine off her.”

She also testified that, by even going up to the room after seeing the “free p***y” Snapchat, he was no better than the men who assaulted her.

Cornell imposed a no-contact order for John and the alleged victim, had him take a class on the issues of social media and sexual harassment, and write a “reflection paper.”

His lawyer also argued that one of the panel members was distracted when a witness was testifying. He claimed one panel member was driving a car for 45 minutes and was “otherwise distracted while a witness” was testifying.

In one email from John’s lawyer to Cornell, he wrote the panel member in question “has not adhered to her responsibilities as a hearing panel member.” He said the panel member had “repeatedly demonstrated that she is engaged in other work during hearing sessions.”

Cornell argued John received a fair investigation and the court affirmed the University’s decision.