Doe v. Regents of the University of California
5 Cal. App. 5th 1055
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- John Doe and Jane Roe were UCSD students who dated; Jane alleged sexual misconduct after a breakup, including alleged nonconsensual sexual intercourse on Jan 31, 2014 and digital penetration on the morning of Feb 1, 2014.
- OPHD investigator produced a report finding it more likely than not that John digitally penetrated Jane on Feb 1; two other claims were not sustained.
- A student conduct panel heard live testimony (Jane only), reviewed the OPHD report and exhibits, found John responsible for sexual misconduct, and recommended a one-quarter suspension.
- Dean Mallory imposed a one-year suspension (consistent with UCSD sanctioning guidelines); the council of provosts later increased suspension to one year and one quarter on appeal.
- John petitioned for writ of mandate in superior court claiming insufficient evidence, unfair process (limits on cross-examination, counsel participation, use of OPHD report, penalizing Fifth Amendment invocation), and abusive sanctions; the superior court granted the petition.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it found substantial evidence supported the panel, UCSD’s procedures—while imperfect—were not unfair or prejudicial on this record, and the sanctions were not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial-evidence supporting panel finding | Record does not support finding John committed sexual misconduct; panel relied on inconsistent hearsay (OPHD report) and uncorroborated testimony | Jane's live testimony plus OPHD investigative report constitute substantial evidence; appellate review is deferential | Court: Substantial evidence (Jane's hearing testimony and OPHD report) supports the panel's finding of sexual misconduct |
| Fairness of hearing — counsel participation | John contends denial of active role for counsel denied due process | UCSD permits advisors but not active participation; counsel had substantial pre- and post-hearing involvement | Court: No right to lawyer participation at hearing; counsel's involvement outside the hearing provided meaningful participation |
| Fairness of hearing — cross-examination and use of a screen | John argues panel improperly limited cross-examination (only 9 of 32 submitted questions asked) and screen prevented fairness | UCSD allowed indirect questioning through panel, screening of repetitive/irrelevant questions, and separation is permitted to protect complainant | Court: Indirect questioning satisfied due process here; omissions did not prejudice John and were within UCSD procedures |
| Withheld investigative materials & Fifth Amendment invocation | John says OPHD notes were withheld and panel penalized him for invoking Fifth Amendment | Regents note OPHD report was disclosed and review procedures allow reliance on it; respondent may testify or remain silent but cannot selectively testify then refuse relevant follow-ups | Court: Although notes might be useful, OPHD report and Request put John on notice; selective invocation after giving some testimony permitted panel to consider credibility; no prejudicial denial of fair hearing |
| Sanctions and increase on appeal | John argues sanctions were increased in retaliation and without reason (panel recommendation lower) | Mallory had sanctioning authority and followed guidelines (one-year minimum); council acted within discretion when increasing suspension slightly | Court: No abuse of discretion; dean imposed guideline-consistent sanction and council reasonably increased suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd., 238 Cal.App.4th 710 (scope of appellate review of administrative mandamus)
- Do v. Regents of the University of California, 216 Cal.App.4th 1474 (standard for substantial evidence review of university disciplinary findings)
- USC v. Doe (Doe v. University of Southern California), 246 Cal.App.4th 221 (discussing limits on hearsay and cross-examination in campus proceedings)
- Goldberg v. Regents of the University of California, 248 Cal.App.2d 867 (university discipline need not follow formal rules of evidence; due process in student discipline)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (minimum due process elements for student discipline — notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (due process elements for college disciplinary hearings — witness names and gist of testimony)
- Andersen v. Regents of the University of California, 22 Cal.App.3d 763 (limits on full judicial-formal procedures in campus discipline)
- California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 575 (deference to administrative factfinders; credibility for trier of fact)
- In re Marriage of Mix, 14 Cal.3d 604 (single witness testimony may constitute substantial evidence)
- People v. Frierson, 53 Cal.3d 730 (Fifth Amendment — no inference of guilt in criminal context)