Lawsuit: Cornell fraternity brothers drugged, gang-raped student

A former Cornell University student has filed a sweeping civil lawsuit alleging that seven fraternity brothers drugged her with ketamine and sexually assaulted her over several hours at the Chi Phi house, then used a group chat to draw more men into the room, according to a complaint filed this week in Manhattan Supreme Court.

The plaintiff, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe, was 20 years old and had been drinking at bars near campus before arriving at the Chi Phi fraternity house on Edgemoor Lane in Ithaca, New York, the suit claims. According to the 101-page complaint, she was “incapable of consenting” by the time she arrived and was nonetheless brought to a room by one of the defendants.

The lawsuit names seven Chi Phi brothers as defendants — Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar — along with Cornell University, the fraternity’s national and local chapters, a sorority, and a local bar accused of serving her while she was underage.

The lawsuit and most outlets that have reviewed it, including the Cornell Daily Sun, place the alleged assault on the night of Oct. 19 into the early morning of Oct. 20, 2024. A separate contemporaneous account of the fraternity’s suspension put the incident on Oct. 25; that discrepancy has not been resolved in the record reviewed for this story.

According to the Cornell Daily Sun’s account of the complaint, at roughly 1:42 a.m. one defendant allegedly sent a message to a Snapchat group called “Chi Phi Actives” inviting other fraternity members to join, after which the suit claims additional men entered the room. The complaint further alleges she was repeatedly given more ketamine over the course of the night before losing consciousness; she says she regained awareness later that day.

The plaintiff reported the incident to Cornell University police on Nov. 8, 2024. That day, the university placed Chi Phi’s Xi chapter on temporary suspension pending review under the Student Code of Conduct. According to the lawsuit, temporary suspensions were also issued that week for each of the seven individual defendants. The suit further alleges the suspended students were later “afforded the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays” to the university — an arrangement the plaintiff’s attorneys cite as evidence Cornell failed to adequately discipline those involved.

Then-interim Cornell President Michael I. Kotlikoff addressed the case publicly in a Nov. 26, 2024, statement, calling the allegations “serious and deeply disturbing” and confirming that both a criminal investigation by Cornell police and a Title IX review were underway. According to the complaint, the plaintiff believes Cornell’s Title IX investigation has since concluded, while she believes an Ithaca Police Department criminal investigation remains open; the university has not independently confirmed either status in the material reviewed for this story.

No criminal charges have been filed against any of the men. An attorney for defendant Scott Kretzschmar, Jeremy Saland, told TMZ his client “wholeheartedly” denies the allegations, saying the defense possesses “documents that thoroughly corroborate our position, including the plaintiff’s own words, statements from other parties, and scientific evidence demonstrating that the claims against him are false.” Saland noted that the criminal investigation produced no charges against Kretzschmar and said “there was absolutely no criminality on Scott’s part.”

A Cornell spokesperson told CNY Central the university has “no comment on this pending litigation.” The remaining defendants have not publicly responded.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from all parties, including claims of negligence, negligent supervision and breach of contract against the university and Greek organizations, and claims of sexual assault, sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the individual defendants. It also invokes New York’s Dram Shop Act against the bar accused of serving the plaintiff while underage.