Doe v. University of Southern California
246 Cal. App. 4th 221
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- USC disciplined John Doe for conduct at a January 2013 fraternity party, including a first consensual encounter with Jane and a second encounter with multiple men where Jane was harmed; SJACS charged him under multiple code sections, and the Appeals Panel reversed some findings but found two violations; John challenged process fairness and sufficiency of evidence, and USC cross-appealed on one finding.
- Initial notices to John did not reveal the factual basis for the later slaps/endangerment theory; SJACS investigation focused on consent, not on the theories ultimately used to sanction John.
- Appeals Panel relied on different theories than SJACS for sanctions, and John was not afforded a meaningful hearing or notice of the specific allegations ultimately sustaining sanctions.
- Trial court denied fair notice challenge for some theories but granted John’s petition as to 11.32; the court sustained 11.44C but not 11.32; John and USC cross-appealed.
- Court reviews petition for writ of mandate de novo on fairness and substantial evidence; court ultimately affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for writ issuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was John afforded a fair hearing and notice of the charges? | John lacked notice of the factual basis for 11.44C and 11.32. | USC contends the process was fair and John had notice to respond. | Yes, not fair; notice and hearing defective; remand ordered. |
| Was there substantial evidence to support 11.44C finding? | Evidence does not show John encouraged or permitted slaps. | Panel relied on Jane's testimony and conduct context. | No substantial evidence; reversed as to 11.44C. |
| Was there substantial evidence to support 11.32 finding? | Leaving Jane unattended did not show endangerment given conflicting accounts. | Panel relied on Witness 6; Jane’s and John’s accounts conflict. | No substantial evidence; reversed as to 11.32. |
| Did the trial court err in upholding some findings while overturning others based on notice/evidence? | Process defects invalidate some findings; substantial evidence fails. | Some findings could be sustained on substantial evidence. | Partially reversed; remanded for writ of mandate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (due process in student discipline requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1968) (fair notice; charges must be known before proceedings; new charges after testimony problematic)
- Wheeler v. State Bd. of Forestry, 144 Cal.App.3d 522 (Cal. App. 1983) (accusation must initiate proceeding; unspecified standards invalid under APA)
- Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists, 12 Cal.3d 541 (Cal. 1974) (minimum fair hearing standards; notice and opportunity to respond)
- English v. City of Long Beach, 35 Cal.2d 155 (Cal. 1950) (hearing cannot rely on undisclosed information; must hear on evidence presented)
- Dixon v. Alabama State Bd. of Ed., 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961) (students entitled to notice of charges, witness list, and opportunity to defend)