When Campus Discipline Collides with Civil Litigation: What Pampu v. Wingo Teaches About Finality, Fairness, and the Power of Prior Findings

Today, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a powerful opinion in Pampu v. Wingo—a case that touches nearly every flashpoint in modern civil litigation: Title IX, campus discipline, defamation, civil conspiracy, due process, and the binding effect of prior proceedings.

At its core, the decision draws a sharp line: If a litigant participates in an administrative process, chooses not to challenge its outcome, and later settles related litigation while leaving that outcome intact, they don’t get to relitigate the same facts in a new courtroom.

The case arose from a deeply unfortunate encounter at a college fraternity party, but the ruling from the Court of Appeals reaches well beyond any one student or campus. It’s about legal finality, strategic choices, and the limits of what courts will entertain after an administrative fact-finding body has spoken.

Let’s walk through what happened, what the Court did, and what it means going forward.

The Background: A Night, a Hearing, and a Lawsuit
In October 2015, Clemson freshman Andrew Pampu had a drunken sexual encounter with fellow student Erin Wingo at a fraternity party. Wingo later reported that she was intoxicated to the point of incapacity and did not consent. Clemson’s Office of Community and Ethical Standards (OCES) investigated under Title IX procedures and concluded:

• Wingo was incapacitated and could not legally or factually consent.
• Pampu should have known she lacked capacity.
• As a result, Pampu was suspended.

Pampu did not appeal the finding under South Carolina’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Instead, he sued Clemson in federal court under Title IX and constitutional theories. He later settled that case. Crucially, as part of that settlement, he left the university’s disciplinary findings in place.

Two years later, Pampu brought a new action—this time in the Court of Common Pleas against Wingo, her father, and another student, Colin Gahagan. His claims included defamation and civil conspiracy, asserting that they spread false allegations that he had raped Wingo.

The case went to trial. Pampu won a significant jury verdict. The Circuit Court, however, later threw out the conspiracy claim via JNOV but upheld the defamation awards. Everyone appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals Decision: Drawing the Line
The Court of Appeals reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. The opinion is notable for its clarity and force. It makes a few key moves:

1. Civil Conspiracy Claim: Dismissed for Lack of Unlawful Conduct
The Court affirmed the trial judge’s JNOV on the civil conspiracy claim. Pampu had argued that Wingo and Gahagan conspired to have him removed from Clemson by manipulating the Title IX process.

But the Court found:

• There was no unlawful act or lawful act by unlawful means.
• Pampu tried to repackage his suspension as “tortious interference with a contract” between him and Clemson.
• This failed because he had already settled a related breach of contract claim with Clemson and there was no evidence Clemson acted unlawfully or relied on knowingly false statements.
• Expert testimony about future earnings was too speculative to prove damages.

In short: there was no conspiracy, no unlawful act, and no evidence of legally recognized damages.

2. Defamation Claim: Dismissed by Operation of Collateral Estoppel
The Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court’s denial of JNOV on Pampu’s defamation claim.

Here’s the logic:

• Defamation requires a false statement. But the statements Wingo and the others made (that Pampu had committed sexual misconduct) aligned with Clemson’s official findings.
• Pampu chose not to appeal those findings through the APA.
• He then settled a federal lawsuit, allowing those findings to stand.
• The court applied collateral estoppel. Once an issue has been litigated and finalized in an earlier proceeding, it cannot be relitigated later—especially not when the earlier findings are part of a settlement.

Whether the statements were made on campus, in private, in public speeches, or within the Title IX process didn’t matter. Because the statements tracked with the findings of fact already made, they weren’t false, and therefore not defamatory.

Why This Case Matters
For colleges, their insurers, or litigants tied to campus incidents, this case is a must-read. It also provides a reminder to litigators about the downstream effects of procedural decisions made early in a case.

Here’s what Pampu v. Wingo reinforces:

• Collateral estoppel is real. When you litigate and lose (or settle without appeal), you live with the outcome.
• Truth is a defense. If the alleged defamatory statement echoes findings made in a prior adjudication, courts will likely deem it non-actionable.
• Settlements have weight. Pampu settled a federal case and allowed Clemson’s findings to stand. That strategic choice precluded him from claiming falsity in a later defamation suit.
• Conspiracy requires more than suspicion. The court will require evidence of unlawful means, not just interpersonal coordination or strong feelings.
• Administrative findings can bind. College disciplinary boards, when following procedures and providing due process, will be treated as state agencies under the law. Their findings carry preclusive weight.

Final Result:

• Pampu’s civil conspiracy and defamation claims are dismissed.
• Wingo, Gahagan, and her father prevail.
• The trial court is instructed to enter judgment for the defendants on all claims.

Closing Thought: Finality Has Consequences
This case isn’t just about what happened one night at a college party. It’s about what lawyers do next and how procedural decisions, settlement language, and the failure to appeal can shape the future of a case. Courts will not let litigants relitigate settled matters under new labels.

For those practicing in higher ed, tort defense, or institutional liability, the message is clear: don’t underestimate the weight of prior findings. And never assume you’ll get a second bite at the apple once the clock has run.

Link to the Court of Appeals’ opinion: no212025.pdf