New allegations have emerged in an amended complaint submitted last Thursday by the graduate student suing Duke for allegedly mishandling her claim that a Women’s Center employee’s partner sexually assaulted her. 

The Women’s Center employee and her partner are also listed as defendants. 

In the amended complaint, the graduate student claims that she was raped by the employee’s partner. The student then confronted the partner and informed him she was reporting his conduct. However, the partner then told the graduate student about his relationship with the Women’s Center employee, and said the employee would use her position to obstruct the report and damage the graduate student’s reputation, according to the complaint.

“We will make you be quiet,” the employee’s partner allegedly said. 

The graduate student reached out to various off-campus organizations for support, but was repeatedly directed to the Women’s Center employee. Eventually, she reached out to the employee by writing a letter about the alleged rape, but was denied assistance, the lawsuit alleges. 

Afterwards, the Women’s Center employee allegedly filed a complaint with the Duke University Police Department accusing the graduate student of stalking. The student’s complaint states that she was then required to attend a meeting with a representative from the Office of Student Affairs, at which point she began to fear that her confidential letter had been disclosed. 

The student claims she was then informed that the letter had indeed been disclosed to others and would not be treated as confidential because “she was not a client of the Women’s Center.”

The complaint also alleges that the student was asked to provide an affidavit for a custody matter involving the partner of the Women’s Center employee and his ex-wife. In the affidavit, the student claimed that she reported the sexual assault. 

The complaint further alleges that the partner enlisted the help of a Duke Police Department officer, to impugn the student’s credibility. The complaint says the officer claimed he investigated the rape and concluded that no sexual assault occurred. But the officer did determine that the graduate student “became jealous and enraged” when she learned that the partner was dating the Women’s Center employee and “attempted to exact revenge” by reporting the rape, according to the complaint. 

The Women’s Center employee told a colleague that she planned to destroy the plaintiff’s reputation both within and outside the University. The colleague was allegedly “stunned,” the lawsuit continues.

“[Women’s Center employee], you wouldn’t,” the colleague allegedly said. 

“F*** yes, I will,” the Women’s Center employee allegedly replied.

The lawsuit states that even after the colleague protested that the employee should not do that to a victim of sexual violence, the employee replied, “you just watch me.”

The complaint lists several charges against the University, including Title IX violations, interference with the student’s civil rights, breach of educational contract, unfair or deceptive trade practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

Two weeks ago, Duke, the Women’s Center employee and her partner all filed separate motions to dismiss the suit. 

The University’s motion argued that the graduate student’s original complaint did not state any “credible claim” against the defendants, and that the complaint lacked specific details. The partner’s motion stated that the original complaint by plaintiff lacked enough specificity and did not list a specific constitutional right that was interfered with, nor evidence of an agreement to interfere with that right. 

“[The] plaintiff did not allege interference with a constitutional right or facts from which one could reasonably infer acts of conspiracy participated in by Duke,” reads the University’s motion, filed by attorneys Dan Hartzog and Katherine Barber-Jones.

None of the three parties have yet responded to the amended complaint. The Women’s Center employee has until Sept. 29 to file a response.