ALISA OPPENHEIMER
News Editor
While Fredonia is trying to manage an entire SUNY campus during a pandemic, they also have another heavy situation on their hands.
A former student who has been expelled for “non-consensual sexual conduct,” is requesting from the Supreme Court of Chautauqua County that they be reinstated and have their record cleared.
The former student is only referred to as “Z.P.,” and has requested to stay anonymous in all public court records.
During the spring semester of 2019, on or around March 8, the incident regarding Z.P. was reported to Fredonia’s Title IX coordinator, Dr. Bill Boerner, by another Fredonia student.
At this time, an investigation was not pursued, because the student who reported the incident chose not to pursue one.
This is where it becomes a little messy, and Z.P. and his lawyer Angel Antonio Castro III feel that Fredonia mishandled the situation.
![](https://fredonialeader.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CampusStudents_LD_7913-2-1024x683.jpg)
According to court records, an Article 78 proceeding was filed against Fredonia.
This is when a situation or decision is asked to be looked over by the court.
Z.P. was expelled for allegedly violating section 2(f) of Fredonia’s Student Code of Conduct, otherwise known as “non-consensual sexual intimacy or unwanted physical sexual conduct.”
One of the big claims made by Z.P. in his attempt in seeking relief was that there was a delay between the alleged encounter and when the investigation took place.
For example, here is the timeline of events leading up to the expulsion of Z.P. according to court records:
Around Aug. 25, 2019, five months after the incident was initially reported, the student who reported Z.P. requested a “no contact order,” after a meeting with Dr. Saundra Liggins, director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Z.P. was informed of the action taken against them on Sept. 6, 2019.
Then about a year later, the student who reported the situation initially, chose to request an investigation around Aug. 31, 2020.
Z.P. was notified of this on Sept. 28 and two days later he met with Liggins for a one-on-one interview.
The claim of evidence was submitted to University Police on Oct. 7, and on Nov. 4, 2020 a Judicial Board Meeting was held via Zoom.
Only two days prior to that meeting, Z.P. was found guilty of violating section 2(f) of Fredonia’s Student Code of Conduct.
Z.P. then tried to appeal this decision, but was denied to do so on Nov. 31, 2020.
Z.P. also made claims regarding the wrongdoings throughout the investigation.
For one, court records show that allegedly only two people were interviewed during the investigation — Z.P. and the student who reported the situation — while according to the respondent there were various witnesses that could corroborate or dispute it.
Z.P. also claimed to be misinformed of their rights throughout the investigation.
Freodnia ultimately allows the accompaniment of an advisor during an interview regarding conduct of this matter, but Z.P. allegedly “was misled to believe” that this was only a “support person,” or “someone to sit with [them] as [they] recount what happened.”
In seeking response to these claims, both Dr. Saundra Liggins and Dr. Cedric Howard declined to comment on the situation.
However, Melissa H. Thore, counsel for SUNY Fredonia, does provide her argument on record.
According to court records, Thore argues that “injunctive relief is a drastic remedy that should be awarded sparingly and only where the party seeking it has met its burden of proving both the clear right to the ultimate relief sought, and the urgent necessity of preventing irreparable harm.”
She also argues: “To obtain preliminary and injunctive relief, the movant must show, by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparably injury in the absence of provisional relief and; (3) a balancing of the equities in its favor… Petitioner cannot meet this high burden.”
One point made to corroborate these points was that there is “substantial evidence [that] supported Respondent’s determination that Z.P. was responsible for violation of Art. 2 (f) of the Code of Conduct.
They also claim that the “Respondent’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.”
Currently, this case is still ongoing.
If the former student wins the case, Fredonia will not only have to clear the student’s record, but will also have to compensate Z.P. for all legal costs.
If their record is cleared, it is unknown whether or not this student would be allowed to or even intend on returning to campus.