Mason Ortegel, a Virginia Tech student and member of both the Corps of Cadets and the Army ROTC program, was found responsible for sexual harassment following an August 21, 2021 incident involving a fellow cadet, Jane Roe, who reported that Ortegel made unwanted sexual comments, kissed her without consent, and physically restrained her — allegations Ortegel disputes and does not recall due to his level of intoxication that night. After a disciplinary hearing on January 10, 2022, hearing officers DaShawn Dilworth and Lindsay Pritchard issued a decision letter finding Ortegel in violation of Policy 1026 — Sexual Harassment and imposing sanctions that included a deferred suspension, participation in Hokie Wellness services, submission of a counseling log, a requirement that Ortegel read Man Enough: Undefining My Masculinity by Justin Baldoni and submit written reflections on each chapter, two letters of acknowledgment, identification of and meetings with a mentor, and three follow-up meetings with a hearing officer. Ortegel appealed, and the original decision was upheld on February 10, 2022. He then sued Virginia Tech, Dilworth, and the university's Title IX Coordinator under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Chief United States District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon denied Virginia Tech's motion for summary judgment on the Title IX claim, holding that a reasonable jury could find that Ortegel's sex was a but-for cause of the disciplinary outcome. The court applied the standard from Sheppard v. Visitors of Virginia State University, which requires that sex be a but-for cause — not necessarily the sole cause — of the challenged disciplinary decision.

The court identified three categories of evidence sufficient, in combination, to create a genuine dispute of material fact. First, Dilworth had tweeted in May 2021 that he was doing his part to hold other men accountable and retweeted a post stating that it was quite interesting how many college-aged boys and men seem to understand consent when it comes to drinking their chocolate milk, but not when it comes to someone else's body and space. A different male student had previously challenged Dilworth's appointment as a hearing officer based on those same posts, and the Director of Student Conduct removed Dilworth from that case — not because he believed Dilworth was biased, but to ensure the student felt the process was fair. Second, Dilworth's deposition testimony contained numerous statements referencing sex-based implicit bias and broader patriarchal systems. He testified that he more than likely has an implicit bias in favor of males that he actively acknowledges and tries to work against, that this bias stems in part from living in a patriarchal society and from being a man himself, that Virginia Tech is part of that system, and that consent is primarily something that all men, regardless of age, struggle with — a belief he maintained at the time of Ortegel's hearing. Third, Dilworth assigned Ortegel the book on masculinity despite never having read it in full, acknowledged he would more than likely not have assigned it to a female respondent, and when asked directly whether he took Ortegel's sex into account in applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, responded that he was inclined to say no and did not think sex was taken into consideration in determining preponderance of evidence.

The court rejected Virginia Tech's argument that the involvement of multiple independent decisionmakers — including Pritchard, the appellate officer, and separate VTCC and ROTC proceedings — broke the causal chain. Because Ortegel was not proceeding under an erroneous-outcome theory, the court held that subsequent or parallel determinations by unbiased decisionmakers do not defeat liability if sex was a but-for cause of the challenged adjudication before the Office of Student Conduct. The court also noted that the record does not conclusively establish the extent to which Dilworth's potential bias may have influenced other decisionmakers.

The court granted summary judgment to Dilworth on the separate Equal Protection claim brought against him in his individual capacity, holding that Ortegel failed to identify a similarly situated comparator. Ortegel's reliance on other intoxicated female students was too general, and the court held that a sexual assault accuser and the accused are not similarly situated for Equal Protection purposes. The court also granted summary judgment in full to the Title IX Coordinator on both the Equal Protection and Due Process claims, holding that the Ex parte Young exception did not apply to her official-capacity claims.

The Title IX claim against Virginia Tech proceeds to trial.