A disabled University of Michigan student claims that her professors discriminated against her by falsely accusing her of using AI to write her essays.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court last week, lawyers for a young woman known as ‘Jane Doe’ accused the university and individual instructors of treating symptoms of her disability as telltale signs of AI-based cheating.
They say the student, who has OCD and anxiety disorder, presented unspecified “proof” that she had not used AI, only to be overruled and blocked from graduating.
“Despite that notice, U-M and its Office of Student Academic Affairs proceeded with disciplinary actions without implementing disability-informed accommodations, allowed the same accuser to remain the gatekeeper for grading and remedial work,” the lawyers wrote.
“The accusations were based heavily on subjective judgments about Plaintiff’s writing style and on self-confirming ‘AI comparison’ outputs generated using Plaintiff’s own outlines and content.”
It is the latest lawsuit by students who say they were unfairly tarred as plagiarists over essays that they claim to have written.
In October 2025, a student on Long Island sued Adelphi College for allegedly branding his own work as AI-generated and refusing to allow any appeal. One year earlier, the parents of a Massachusetts teenager sued their son’s high school for similar reasons.
At the same time, teachers and professors say they have been overwhelmed by AI-generated schoolwork that has rapidly rendered traditional methods — such as homework — close to obsolete.
Colleges, too, are reportedly using AI to analyze and evaluate admission essays, allowing them to sort more quickly through tens of thousands of applications.
The ‘Jane Doe’ lawsuit also touches on the shaky record of AI detection tools, which research suggests are often inaccurate.
According to the complaint, Doe’s instructor had publicly posted: “I fear that grading has made me paranoid and inclined to see AI everywhere.”
In November 2025 he allegedly filed an academic misconduct accusation against Doe, claiming he was “immediately suspicious” of the paper’s “unmistakable” AI-esque style.
Doe countered with “medical and psychological documentation” explaining that her disabilities — obsessive compulsive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder — might sometimes make her seem dishonest even though she was not.
“Plaintiff’s disabilities affect her ability to tolerate high-stress academic and disciplinary proceedings, particularly those requiring live verbal defense, rapid processing, and adversarial questioning,” the complaint reads.
“Plaintiff’s clinicians warned that anxiety- and OCD-related writing traits – such as a formal tone, meticulous structure, stylistic consistency, and highly organized presentation — may be misinterpreted as artificial or dishonest behavior, and that Plaintiff’s limitations necessitate disability-informed handling of any disciplinary proceedings.”
In summary, the complaint argues, “Defendants treated disability-related traits and limitations as evidence of guilt and failed to apply disability- informed modifications in the academic integrity process.”
The Independent has asked the University of Michigan for comment.
