77 Cal.App.5th 111
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Teacher, a CWSL student, was accused of accessing two classmates' accounts on Sept 30, 2017 and Jan 13, 2018 to send offensive emails and print documents; CWSL investigated and convened a PRC panel.
- CWSL scheduled a formal Professional Responsibility Committee (PRC) hearing; Dean Smythe told Teacher the hearing “will not be a trial” and that no witnesses were anticipated; Teacher represented himself and later submitted a written timeline and questions.
- The PRC did not call live witnesses at the hearing but reviewed emails, computer logs, Dean Bashant’s investigatory Summary, and various witness statements or summaries; the Panel found Teacher more likely than not responsible and recommended expulsion.
- CWSL expelled Teacher; he sued seeking a writ of administrative mandate under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 (plus contract, covenant, and declaratory claims); the trial court denied the writ, concluding there were no witnesses to cross-examine.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal held CWSL violated its own Procedures by depriving Teacher of the guaranteed right to cross-examine any person on whose statements the Panel relied; the judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings (including consideration of CWSL’s unclean-hands defense).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CWSL denied fair process by refusing cross-examination | Teacher: Procedures guarantee right to cross-examine witnesses; he was never allowed to cross-examine witnesses whose statements the Panel used | CWSL: No violation because no witnesses were presented live at the hearing; Panel relied on documents and Teacher’s testimony | Held: Violation. "Witnesses" includes persons who provided statements relied on by the Panel; Teacher must be allowed to cross-examine those whose statements are relied upon |
| Forfeiture of cross-examination claim for failure to object at hearing | Teacher: Objection would have been futile given school’s pre-hearing statements that it would not be like a trial and no witnesses were expected | CWSL: Teacher forfeited the claim by failing to object at the hearing | Held: Court excuses forfeiture (futility) and exercises discretion to reach the claim on the merits |
| Scope of the word “witnesses” in CWSL Procedures | Teacher: “Witnesses” covers anyone whose statements are relied on (including written/summarized statements) | CWSL: Implied narrow reading — only witnesses called to testify live at the hearing | Held: Broader reading adopted; common usage and precedents support that "witnesses" can include those who give statements relied upon; Procedures generally require opportunity to cross-examine such persons (subject to reasonable limitations) |
| Remedial and procedural consequences on remand (including unclean-hands defense) | Teacher: If writ granted, relief includes setting aside sanctions and new fair hearing; opposes denial on unclean-hands without hearing | CWSL: Trial court may deny writ based on unclean-hands (alleged false application statements) | Held: Remanded. Trial court must consider CWSL’s unclean-hands defense; if writ is granted, sanctions set aside and any new hearing must honor fair-process requirements (including cross-examination and disclosure of evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Regents of University of California, 70 Cal.App.5th 494 (2021) (recognizing and discussing common-law fair-process protections for private university students)
- Doe v. Allee, 30 Cal.App.5th 1036 (2019) (analyzing fair-hearing standards and administrative-review principles)
- Doe v. Westmont College, 34 Cal.App.5th 622 (2019) (holding reliance on out-of-court statements without cross-examination problematic)
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 246 Cal.App.4th 221 (2016) (private university must comply with its own disciplinary procedures)
- Berman v. Regents of University of California, 229 Cal.App.4th 1265 (2014) (discussing deference to institutional procedures but enforcing compliance with them)
- JMS Air Conditioning & Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College Dist., 30 Cal.App.5th 945 (2018) (forfeiture principles in administrative hearing context)