John Doe v. Westmont Coll.
34 Cal. App. 5th 622
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Jane Roe reported John Doe raped her after an off-campus party; Westmont's Associate Dean Cleek investigated and forwarded summaries to a three-member Student Conduct Panel (which included Cleek).
- The Panel interviewed some, but not all, witnesses; it did not interview K.S., M.H., and M.W., though it relied on their investigator statements in reaching credibility findings.
- The Panel found John violated Sexual Assault-Category I and II (preponderance standard) and suspended him two years; the Vice President for Student Life denied his appeal.
- John filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; the trial court granted relief, finding Westmont denied him a fair hearing and ordered a new hearing without Cleek as an adjudicator.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, holding Westmont violated its own procedures and denied John adequate access to investigative notes, witness testimony, and meaningful opportunity to propose or have follow-up questioning of critical witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (John) | Defendant's Argument (Westmont) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether John received a fair hearing under § 1094.5 and Westmont's policies | Westmont denied a fair hearing by (1) relying on investigator-only statements from untested witnesses, (2) withholding Cleek's notes and Panel notes, and (3) preventing meaningful questioning of witnesses | The hearing complied with Westmont's procedures and was fair; substantial evidence supports the Panel's credibility findings | Court held Westmont denied a fair hearing: Panel relied on untested witness statements, withheld material investigative and hearing notes, and deprived John of a meaningful way to question witnesses; affirmed remedy of new hearing |
| Whether the Panel could base credibility on investigator's reports without providing same to accused | Investigator's reports and Panel notes were material and must be disclosed so accused can respond | Disclosure not required beyond summaries provided; process was adequate | Held that where credibility is pivotal, adjudicators cannot rely on unrevealed information in their possession; Westmont's policy required disclosure of investigator notes and they must be provided |
| Whether investigator Cleek's dual investigator/adjudicator role fatally biased the process | Cleek’s dual role skewed credibility assessments because Panel credited his versions of non-testifying witnesses | An investigator may serve on a multi-member Panel without per se bias | Held that dual role is not automatically disqualifying, but here the Panel effectively adopted Cleek's assessments without hearing critical witnesses, producing unfairness |
| What procedural remedies are required for a new hearing | John sought disclosure of all notes, live or observable testimony of critical witnesses, and ability to propose questions; disqualification of Cleek | Westmont argued no full replay needed and sanctions/decision should stand | Court ordered a new hearing: disclose Cleek's notes and Panel question/response notes; permit John to submit or otherwise have his questions posed to witnesses; Cleek may serve only if fair procedures are provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 246 Cal.App.4th 221 (discusses disclosure and fair-hearing obligations in campus sexual-misconduct proceedings)
- Doe v. Regents of University of California, 5 Cal.App.5th 1055 (explains balancing of fairness and informality; accused must be able to respond)
- Doe v. Allee, 30 Cal.App.5th 1036 (requires mechanisms for accused to pose questions and observe witness demeanor in credibility-driven cases)
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 29 Cal.App.5th 1212 (clarifies investigator/adjudicator roles and indirect questioning mechanisms)
- Doe v. Regents of University of California (UCSB), 28 Cal.App.5th 44 (requires disclosure of witness identities and facts they will testify to; accused must be able to question)
- Doe v. Claremont McKenna College, 25 Cal.App.5th 1055 (addresses importance of observing witness demeanor and limits on cross-examination)
- Fitch v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 9 Cal.4th 552 (noting limitations of assessing credibility on a cold record)