Jane Doe v. Timothy White, Chancellor; Sarah Clegg, Title IX Coordinator, Sonoma State University; Joyce Suzuki; William Kidder; Jesse Andrews
Published: Oct. 23, 2020 | Result Date: Feb. 24, 2020 | Filing Date: Aug. 15, 2019 |Case number: 3:19-cv-04923-SI Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Daniel C. Roth
(Law Office of Daniel C. Roth)
Lara A. Bazelon
(University of San Francisco School of Law)
Joshua Engel
(Engel and Martin LLC)
Defendant
Arthur A. Hartinger
(Renne Public Law Group)
Ian T. Long
(Renne Public Law Group)
Ryan P. McGinley-Stempel
(Renne Public Law Group)
Facts
Plaintiff Jane Doe was a graduate student enrolled in Sonoma State University's two-year master's program in Depth Psychology. Doe alleged that she was accused of sexual misconduct for feigning masturbation during a school sanctioned dream based movement exercise. Doe further alleged that, after Sonoma State notified her of the allegations against her and interviewed her regarding the incident, she was not permitted to attend her graduate level courses as an interim remedy pending the investigation. She alleged that the investigation took 14 months. Sonoma State ultimately found that Doe did not violate university policies for sexual misconduct. Plaintiff sued Timothy White, Chancellor of the California State University System, Sarah Clegg, Director of Title IX and HR Compliance at Sonoma State for violation of her Fourteenth Amendment Rights to the constitution under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that her procedural due process rights were violated when defendants did not provide her with a hearing prior to her 14 month alleged suspension and failed to give plaintiff an opportunity to present her case prior to alleged suspension. Plaintiff also contended that she was deprived of her property because she continued to be enrolled in Sonoma State and paid tuition fees during her suspension.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff was required to exhaust her state judicial remedies before plaintiff can pursue a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim. Defendants contended that they were protected from plaintiff's claims under the privilege of qualified immunity, both because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional deprivation and because there was no constitutional deprivation in the first instance.
Result
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390