851 F. Supp. 2d 1182
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Felber and Maissy, UC Berkeley students, allege harassment and intimidation by SJP and MSA members on Sproul Plaza and campus.
- Apartheid Week events include checkpoints with soldiers and simulated assault weapons; Felber was injured during a March 2010 incident.
- Plaintiffs claim UC officials and ASUC tolerated a hostile anti-Semitic climate and failed to implement protective policies.
- Incidents cited span 1995–2011, including verbal spitting, disrupted speeches, vandalism, and arrests of demonstrators; some events occurred off-campus or prior to enrollment.
- Defendants include the Regents of the University of California, university executives, UC Berkeley officials, and ASUC; SJP/MSA chapters receive ASUC funding.
- Court grants motions to dismiss the federal claims, with leave to amend only for a Title VI claim against certain university defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are there viable First Amendment/constitutional claims against defendants? | Felber asserts free exercise/assembly harms from campus environment. | State actors have no duty to protect individuals from private harassment; no interference shown. | No viable constitutional claim; first and third claims dismissed. |
| Does Title VI liability stand given the alleged conduct? | Discriminatory harassment at UC facilities denies equal access to education. | Allegations fail to show severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive conduct or deliberate indifference. | Title VI insufficient; amendment allowed against Regents and certain officials. |
| Is ASUC subject to federal claims for liability? | ASUC could be responsible due to funding decisions and denial of access. | ASUC is not a recipient of federal funds nor an entity that denies access; no federal claim. | ASUC claims dismissed; leave to amend denied. |
| Should state-law claims proceed if federal claims are dismissed? | State claims should be considered alongside federal concerns. | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction if federal claims are out. | State claims may be repleaded in amended complaint; court retains discretion on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (U.S. 2011) (protective reach of free speech for public concerns)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (no constitutional duty on state to protect individuals from private harm)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (deliberate indifference standard for school harassment claims; private harm context)
- Saxe v. State College Area School Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) (limits of school harassment policies and First Amendment boundaries)
- LaVine v. Blaine Sch. Dist., 257 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2001) (constitutional boundaries of student speech discipline)
- College Republicans at San Francisco State Univ. v. Reed, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (analysis of student conduct policies and First Amendment constraints)