Jane Doe v. Sarah Lawrence College is a civil lawsuit filed on October 29, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 7:19-cv-10028). The plaintiff, identified pseudonymously as Jane Doe, is a former student at Sarah Lawrence College (SLC) who alleges institutional negligence by the college and several administrators in handling the exploitation and abuse orchestrated by Lawrence Ray, a convicted sex trafficker who infiltrated the campus community. Ray, the father of an SLC student, manipulated a group of students starting around 2010, coercing them into a cult-like environment involving psychological control, forced labor, sexual exploitation, and financial scams. Jane Doe claims that SLC failed to protect its students despite awareness of Ray's predatory behavior, including reports of abuse and his unauthorized presence on campus. The defendants include SLC, former President Cristle Collins Judd, Dean of Students Allen Green, Director of Student Life Daniel Trujillo, and others such as Paige Crandall and Beverly Fox, accused of Title IX violations, breach of duty, and emotional distress under 20 U.S.C. provisions related to educational institutions.

The lawsuit stems from the broader Larry Ray scandal, which gained national attention after a 2019 New York Magazine article and subsequent HBO documentary 'The Vow' (though focused on NXIVM, it parallels the manipulation tactics). Ray was arrested in 2020 and convicted in 2023 on charges including sex trafficking, extortion, and forced labor, receiving a 60-year sentence. Jane Doe's suit seeks damages for the college's alleged inaction, such as not intervening when Ray isolated students or when abuse was reported. A 2022 memorandum opinion and order addressed motions to dismiss, allowing some claims to proceed while dismissing others, highlighting ongoing litigation over the college's liability. This case underscores issues of campus safety, administrative accountability, and the handling of coercive control in higher education settings.

As of available records, the case remains active, with implications for how colleges respond to external predators targeting vulnerable students. It has drawn criticism of SLC for prioritizing reputation over student welfare, contributing to discussions on institutional negligence in abuse cases.