An employee who is investigated and cleared of a sexual harassment allegation can become the victim of sex-based harassment, and an employer may be liable for failing to address it. A recent federal jury verdict involving the University of Maryland determined that publicly calling someone a “rapist” and “sexual predator” can qualify as sex-based harassment that the institution must address. Although this case did not arise in the employment context, it still serves as a timely reminder to employers that accusations of sexual misconduct in the workplace may not end when the internal investigation is complete. Employers may need to take further steps to ensure not only that the victim is protected, but that the accused party is protected as well.
Underlying Facts of the Case
The case is John Doe v. the University of Maryland College Park, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00872-PX, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In 2020, Jane Roe, a female student at the University, accused John Doe, a male student, of rape and sexual assault. After a full investigation and hearing, the University’s Title IX office found Doe not responsible. Rather than challenge that decision, Roe waged a months-long campaign to publicly label Doe a “rapist” and “sexual predator,” and ultimately succeeded in having him excluded from the University’s club lacrosse team.
Doe filed multiple complaints with the same Title IX office that had handled the accusations against him, alleging that Roe was sexually harassing him. The office dismissed the complaints, concluding that the harassment was not sex-based and therefore beyond its purview. Doe then sued, alleging, among other claims, that the University was deliberately indifferent to his complaints of sexual harassment in violation of Title IX.
Jury Verdict Against the University
After years of litigation and a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for Doe on October 1, 2026. It found that Doe was subjected to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment and that the University was deliberately indifferent, calling the University’s response “clearly unreasonable.” Doe sought only $1.00 in nominal damages, plus attorneys’ fees, which likely were substantial after four years of litigation.
Although the case arose under Title IX rather than Title VII and applied a different standard, it nevertheless offers useful lessons for employers handling workplace harassment allegations. The University argued that labelling Doe a “rapist” and “sexual predator” was not sex-based because it targeted his alleged misconduct, not the fact that he is a man.
The court had rejected that argument at summary judgment, explaining that “rape is inherently sex-based.” But it cautioned that a false accusation, standing alone, is not enough. Here, a broader pattern involving repeated public accusations, efforts to ostracize Doe, and his eventual exclusion from the lacrosse team, let a jury find sex-based harassment, because the accusations used sex-specific terminology which intended to, and ultimately did, humiliate and ostracize him.
The court also distinguished Balazs v. Liebenthal, 32 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 1994), the Title VII decision the University relied on, in which the Fourth Circuit held that a single false accusation that a male employee harassed female coworkers did not, by itself, establish sex discrimination. Roe’s conduct, by contrast, was a sustained campaign of public shaming and exclusion, far more than a single false accusation.
That distinction is critical for employers.
The Employment Law Lesson: Investigate What Happens After the Complaint
Workplace investigations appropriately focus on the original allegation: Did the harassment occur? Who is telling the truth? What corrective action is appropriate? But employers should also pay attention to what happens after the complaint is made. An accused employee may later complain that coworkers are retaliating against him, ostracizing him, spreading the accusations, or otherwise mistreating him because of the underlying dispute.
The lesson of Doe is that those complaints may themselves constitute sexual harassment. They should not be dismissed as an effort by the accused to “turn the tables” on the original complainant, but should be evaluated on their own merits. That does not mean treating the accused and the complaining employee identically in every circumstance. Interim measures, such as separating employees during an investigation or restricting access to certain systems, worksites, or coworkers, may be appropriate, but they must be based on legitimate, documented reasons and should be revisited as circumstances change. Employers should also keep the retaliation framework in view: an accused employee who complains about being ostracized or mistreated after an investigation may be engaging in protected activity, and adverse treatment that follows such a complaint can support a separate retaliation claim.
The Doe verdict should not be read as a new rule that false accusations of sexual harassment are themselves unlawful harassment. This was a Title IX case about a university’s obligations to its students, and the court expressly distinguished Fourth Circuit employment precedent. The lesson is narrower and more practical: a dispute that begins with an allegation of sexual misconduct can generate new legal and workplace issues after the initial complaint, and employers should not lose sight of how the accused employee is treated. A complainant who is dissatisfied with an investigation’s outcome may seek retribution through public shaming and ostracism. That conduct may itself constitute sexual harassment, and the complainant’s status does not immunize them from such claims or relieve the employer of its duty to address them.
Bottom Line
For employers, the best protection is often the simplest set of practices:
Employers facing specific harassment, retaliation, or investigation issues should consult qualified employment counsel. The attorneys at Luchansky Law can help you assess how these developments affect your workplace policies or navigate a specific situation. For more information, call me at Luchansky Law 410.522.1020, or email me at ari@luchanskylaw.com.
© 2026 Luchansky Law
| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm