60 Cal.App.5th 854
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Student Marcus Knight, who has cerebral palsy and autism, faced complaints from two female students (N.R. and M.G.) for following, touching, and taking photos of them at Saddleback College.
- Initial informal resolution with N.R. produced a mutual no-contact order in October 2017; Knight admitted violating it and later arranged for an attendant to accompany him to class.
- M.G. complained in late 2017; an investigation produced an investigative report (March 2018) recommending suspension for the spring 2018 semester; a March 28 letter informed Knight of the proposed suspension and his right to request a disciplinary hearing.
- Knight was allowed to attend classes pending appeal; a requested hearing was later cancelled due to witness unavailability and, in August 2018, the college issued a written disciplinary reprimand placed in his student record instead of imposing suspension.
- Knight petitioned for writ relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 seeking to set aside the college’s findings and sanctions, arguing he was entitled to a live, adversarial hearing with cross-examination; the trial court granted the writ.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a written reprimand requires only "first-level" due process (notice and opportunity to respond) and that Knight had received that process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Knight was entitled to a trial‑like, adversarial hearing (live witnesses and cross‑examination) before any discipline (including a written reprimand) | Knight: any adverse discipline placed in his record requires live confrontation and cross‑examination | Saddleback: only suspensions/expulsions trigger full trial‑like procedures; lesser sanctions need only notice and chance to respond | Court: Full, second‑level due process required only before suspension/expulsion; written reprimand requires only first‑level process (notice + opportunity to respond). |
| Whether the March 28 suspension deprived Knight of due process | Knight: March 28 letter suspended him without required hearing | Saddleback: March 28 reflected a recommendation to suspend; Knight remained in classes and could appeal | Court: No effective suspension occurred; had a suspension been imposed without hearing it would be invalid, but here Knight suffered only a reprimand. |
| Whether the August 2 written reprimand was placed without required process | Knight: reprimand in student file harms future prospects and required live hearing | Saddleback: reprimand followed investigation, multiple meetings, written responses, and invitation to submit a written statement | Court: Reprimand may be placed after first‑level due process; Knight received adequate notice and opportunities to respond. |
| Whether writ relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 was appropriate | Knight: § 1094.5 applies because a hearing "by law" was required and procedures were deficient | Saddleback: § 1094.5 not triggered for a reprimand requiring only informal process; trial court erred | Court: § 1094.5 remedy not applicable to set aside a reprimand where only first‑level due process is required and was provided; trial court's judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (students facing suspension are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard; more formal procedures only when necessary)
- Doe v. Regents of University of California, 5 Cal.App.5th 1055 (2016) (schools must follow their procedures and provide accused students opportunity to present defenses)
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 29 Cal.App.5th 1212 (2018) (postsecondary disciplinary proceedings require notice and access to evidence; in‑person hearings where credibility is central)
- Doe v. Allee, 30 Cal.App.5th 1036 (2019) (cross‑examination and ability to observe testimony important where credibility determines outcome)
- Doe v. Westmont College, 34 Cal.App.5th 622 (2019) (in‑person hearing and live testimony required in serious postsecondary disciplinary cases)
- Doe v. Occidental College, 40 Cal.App.5th 208 (2019) (similar due process protections required in campus adjudications involving sexual misconduct)