The title you have given to this bit of news is a complete fabrication. What actually happened is this:
1) Something happened wherein this woman, HS, suffered at the hands of many of her fellow students. It is alleged that a rape occurred.
2) Mr. Bolton confessed to his role in whatever went down, and was given a misdemeanor assault sentence. Not a rape sentence. Therefore, he was not her convicted rapist.
3) She was dismissed from the cheerleading squad over refusing to cheer specifically for her assaulter [note: not her rapist, saying that is legally incorrect]. (It's not cool anyway, I agree with that)
4) She decided to sue the school for money over this.
5) They were so insistent with their suit that they appealed, and pushed hard for a judgment in their favor. Had they given up once the first court ruled they were entitled to nothing, the 45k "frivolous lawsuit" fee wouldn't have been assessed.
When you make posts, please give articles accurate titles that actually describe the situation in a non-biased fashion. Remember that the vast majority of people who read threads do not read the news article linked in them -- they go off of what others are saying and the summations you give. When you give a misleading summation, you are spreading misinformation, and often stoking the flames of outrage unfairly.
I'm also wondering where people are getting this idea that he was plea-bargained for reasons of mercy from. Plea bargains are often given because the prosecutors know they can't get the supposed criminal on the other charges, so they offer to drop what they can't win on in order to nail them on the lesser counts which they're sure they actually are responsible for.
Furthermore, when accusations are first made, we do not know whether they are true or not. They need to be funneled down to something agreeable through investigation and systematic review of the facts -- that's why we have a judicial system, as opposed to judging people entirely on accusations. It's possible, even most likely option in this situation, that the accused did not sexually assault her but was lumped under that umbrella charge with those who did to begin with. Then, in the proceedings they found out that he was responsible for assaulting her, thus he was charged with that.
Either way, if he was convicted for assault, you have to judge him by that -- not by other accusations. That's not fair, that's not how our legal system works, and we know nothing about what happened beyond that short paragraph in the article. So unless people are drawing from another source I'm unaware of, there's a lot of baseless speculation here.