Berman v. Regents of the University of California
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Feb. 2013, Berman struck a UCSD student, causing the other student to lose consciousness and require medical treatment.
- UCSD charged Berman with violating the Student Conduct Code, including physical abuse and potential intoxication, and offered an administrative resolution meeting with the Dean of Student Affairs.
- A student conduct review board found Berman likely violated the Code and recommended sanctions including probation, anger management, alcohol education, and regular meetings with the Dean.
- Dean Mahaffey reviewed the board’s findings and recommended more serious sanctions, including suspension, after consulting with the Council of Deans of Student Affairs.
- The Council of Deans approved suspension and other sanctions; Berman appealed to the Council of Provosts, who affirmed the suspension.
- Berman sought a writ of mandate; the superior court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, holding the Dean and Council had authority to impose suspension despite the board not recommending it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of the Dean to increase sanctions | Berman argues the Dean lacked authority to impose suspension following a non-suspension board recommendation. | Regents contend the Dean can review board recommendations and, where warranted, recommend suspension to the Council of Deans. | Dean may increase sanctions beyond board recommendations. |
| Authority of the Council of Deans to review and impose suspension | Berman contends the Council lacked jurisdiction to review since board did not recommend suspension. | Regents argue the Council reviews sanctions for suspensions to ensure consistency across colleges. | Council of Deans has authority to review and approve suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Do v. Regents of University of California, 216 Cal.App.4th 1474 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2013) (affords deference to university's interpretation of own regulations)
- Goldbaum v. Regents of University of California, 191 Cal.App.4th 703 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (university governance and authority over disciplinary processes)
- Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2003) (clerical error and administrative record correction principles)
- Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co., 22 Cal.3d 51 (Cal. 1978) (clerical error principle in minute orders)
- Requa v. Regents of University of California, 213 Cal.App.4th 213 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2012) (agency understanding of its own regulations in proceedings)
- Aguilar v. Association for Retarded Citizens, 234 Cal.App.3d 21 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1991) (judicial deference to agency interpretations of regulations)