100 Cal.App.5th 383
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Boermeester, a former USC football player, was expelled for intimate partner violence against another student, Jane Roe, after an incident witnessed by third parties.
- The incident involved allegations that Boermeester pushed Roe against a wall and grabbed her neck, resulting in university investigation and expulsion under USC’s sexual misconduct policy.
- USC used a Title IX process with an investigator-adjudicator model under its 2016 policy; Boermeester challenged the adequacy and fairness of this process.
- Boermeester's initial appeal centered on his claimed right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, which the Court of Appeal initially recognized but was overturned by the California Supreme Court.
- On remand, the Court of Appeal was tasked to address remaining issues: sufficiency of evidence, fairness of the investigator-adjudicator model, and adequacy of USC’s appellate process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial evidence for violation | No physical evidence of harm, witness accounts are uncorroborated hearsay | The investigator’s findings and witness statements, along with video, are sufficient | Substantial evidence supports USC’s finding |
| Fairness of investigator-adjudicator model | Single individual as investigator and adjudicator is inherently unfair | California law allows such a model; investigation was thorough and overseen | Combined role is not inherently unfair, model was fair here |
| Adequacy of appellate process | Limited appellate review amplifies harm from flawed fact-finding | Multi-layered review and procedural protections were provided | Appellate process was more than adequate |
| Standard of review (substantial vs. independent) | Argues education is a vested fundamental right, requiring independent review of evidence | Substantial evidence review is appropriate for non-fundamental right | Substantial evidence standard applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 246 Cal.App.4th 221 (review standard and procedural fairness in private university discipline)
- Doe v. Claremont McKenna College, 25 Cal.App.5th 1055 (discussed evidence needed to substantiate claims in campus discipline)
- Do v. Regents of University of California, 216 Cal.App.4th 1474 (substantial evidence review for university decisions)
- Casella v. SouthWest Dealer Services, Inc., 157 Cal.App.4th 1127 (single witness testimony may constitute substantial evidence)