Mason Ortegel, a Virginia Tech student and member of the Corps of Cadets and Army ROTC, was found responsible for sexual harassment following an August 21, 2021 incident involving a fellow cadet identified as Jane Roe. After a disciplinary hearing on January 10, 2022, hearing officers DaShawn Dilworth and Lindsay Pritchard determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Ortegel made an unwelcome sexual comment to Roe and forcibly kissed her without consent. The sanctions included a deferred suspension and a requirement that Ortegel read Man Enough: Undefining My Masculinity by Justin Baldoni and submit written reflections on each chapter.
Ortegel sued Virginia Tech under Title IX, arguing the disciplinary outcome was the product of unlawful sex-based bias by Dilworth. Chief U.S. District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon, writing for the Western District of Virginia, denied summary judgment on that claim, holding that a reasonable jury could find Ortegel's sex was a but-for cause of the disciplinary decision.
The court identified three categories of evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact. First, Dilworth's social media posts — including a tweet in which he described doing his part to hold other men accountable and a retweet questioning why 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 — raised questions about his objectivity, though the court noted those statements alone likely would not be sufficient. Second, Dilworth's deposition testimony was extensive. He stated that he more than likely has a form of implicit bias where he is naturally inclined to believe men or not hold them accountable for misogynistic or problematic things they might say — a bias he actively acknowledges and tries to work against. He explained that this bias stems not just from the fact that he himself is a man but also from living in what he described as a very patriarchal society, and he acknowledged that Virginia Tech is part of that system. He testified that consent is something that all men, regardless of age, struggle with. He acknowledged that the patriarchal system can extend to student conduct proceedings. When asked directly whether he takes a student's sex into account when deciding whether the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met, Dilworth responded not with a flat denial but with the words: "I'm inclined to say no." Third, Dilworth assigned the masculinity book as a sanction despite never having read it in full, acknowledged he would not have assigned it to a female respondent, and testified that the panel viewed the Corps of Cadets as a heavy masculine space and wanted to give Ortegel a resource focused purely on the man's standpoint.
The court rejected Virginia Tech's argument that the involvement of multiple independent decisionmakers — including Pritchard, appellate officers, and a separate ROTC investigation, all of whom reached the same conclusion — broke the causal chain. Because Ortegel does not pursue an erroneous-outcome theory, the court reasoned, the existence of parallel determinations does not defeat liability if sex was a but-for cause of the challenged adjudication before the Office of Student Conduct. The court noted that to hold otherwise would permit the very discrimination Title IX prohibits so long as a non-biased decisionmaker later reached the same conclusion.
The court granted summary judgment to Dilworth on the separate Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim brought against him in his individual capacity, holding that Ortegel failed to identify a similarly situated comparator. Ortegel's references to other intoxicated female students were too general, and the record contained no information about their circumstances sufficient to permit a meaningful comparison. The court also granted summary judgment to Title IX Coordinator Katie Polidoro on both the Equal Protection and Due Process claims brought against her in her official capacity, finding the Ex parte Young exception inapplicable because Polidoro lacked the authority to provide the expungement relief Ortegel sought — she played no role in the disciplinary hearing and the record contained no evidence establishing who actually holds authority to expunge student conduct records.
The Title IX claim against Virginia Tech proceeds to trial.