The unnamed student, referred to as "Jane Doe" in the lawsuit, said she was unfairly accused of using AI in coursework for Great Books 191, an introductory-level class at the university. She named the graduate student instructor Theo Nash, lead instructor Basil Duffalo, the College of Literature, Science and the Arts Office of Student Academic Affairs Coordinator Sean Edgerton and OSAA Deputy Assistant Dean Christine O’Neil as defendants in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Doe is seeking unspecified damages to stop "ongoing and imminent transcript and graduation harm" while the case is pending and to obtain a fair, disability-informed process for appealing the accusation.
Doe's Detroit-based attorney, Carla Aikens, did not respond to a request for comment.
UM does not have a university-wide policy for addressing potential academic misconduct through the use of AI, its website shows. Instead, the policies are set on a college-by-college basis, with individual professors deciding on the acceptable AI use for their classes.
Paul Corliss, assistant vice president for public affairs at UM, said the university does not comment on pending litigation.
The university was made aware of Doe's anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorders that she had received documented care for since February 2025, the lawsuit said. The accommodations for Great Books 191 were approved on Sept. 19, 2025.
Doe said the accusations of AI use were based heavily on "subjective judgments" about her writing style and on AI comparison outputs. The lawsuit said she "vehemently denied" the use of AI for the course papers and provided proof she didn't use AI. In addition, she provided disability-related documentation explaining her traits associated with her disabilities ― including formal tone, meticulous structure, stylistic consistency and heightened distress during oral confrontation ― can be misinterpreted as artificial or dishonest behavior and are not proof of AI misuse, according to the complaint.
Nash filed three accusations against Doe, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit claimed that Nash used "AI-generated comparison outputs" as evidence in his accusations that were created by prompting AI with the student's own outline and with instructor feedback, then treating the resulting similarity as proof of AI use. The lawsuit claimed this was a "circular methodology" that produces overlapping outputs and was not reliable evidence of misconduct.
On Dec. 10, OSAA found Doe had committed academic misconduct and imposed disciplinary actions, the lawsuit said. Doe filed an appeal and submitted formal complaints to the university leadership, including the college's dean and the UM president’s office. She said she was concerned about disability discrimination, retaliation, harassment and a lack of procedural neutrality in the OSAA process. Doe also filed a joint civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and with UM’s Equity, Civil Rights, and Title IX Office, the lawsuit said.
While UM’s Equity, Civil Rights, and Title IX Office conducted its review, her appeal was paused, the lawsuit said. Despite the ongoing review, Doe said OSAA told her the sanctions would remain in place and her chance to resubmit the contested essays would be graded by Nash, the same person who accused her of using AI.
The lawsuit said the continued disciplinary finding and "No Record" grade while her appeal is stalled are causing harm that cannot be fully remedied by money damages, even if she is ultimately found to be in the right.
©2026 The Detroit News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
