California Supreme Court: No Right to In-Person Cross-Examination of Accuser During Campus Sexual Assault Proceedings
The court highlighted the need to keep the accuser from ‘being retraumatized by the disciplinary process.’ Critics challenged this reasoning, arguing a Title IX proceeding exists to determine whether trauma occurred in the first place.
The California Supreme Court unanimously sided with the University of Southern California in a dispute over in-person questioning of an accuser and witnesses during Title IX proceedings at private universities.
USC expelled Matthew Boermeester for alleged intimate partner violence after a two-month Title IX investigation without allowing live cross-examination of his accuser and witnesses against him, either by Boermeester or a third party. The California Court of Appeal ruled against USC, which appealed.
At the time of Title IX proceedings against Boermeester, USC allowed individuals subject to a Title IX investigation to question the accuser in writing only. The Title IX investigator would then ask the accuser these questions outside the accused’s presence.
“This is a deeply troubling decision,” Justin Dillon, counsel for Families Advocating for Campus Equality, told Legal Insurrection. FACE, which “support[s] and advocate[s] for equal treatment and due process for those affected by inequitable Title IX campus disciplinary processes,” submitted a brief supporting Boermeester.
Boermeester asked the court to apply California’s doctrine of fair procedure to private university disciplinary proceedings, find that USC had failed to observe that doctrine by refusing to allow live questioning of the accuser and witnesses, and reverse his expulsion. The court declined, in a decision praised by USC.
“The university is pleased with the decision and the California Supreme Court’s clarification of the law on this important issue,” USC representative Lauren Bartlett told Legal Insurrection.
“The university will continue to put its students first by using a comprehensive disciplinary process that protects the rights and interests of all students.”
By refusing to allow live questioning, Boermeester argued, USC denied him a fair Title IX hearing because live questioning better allows for credibility determinations. The court disagreed, citing competing interests.
The court noted the balance universities must achieve when crafting disciplinary proceedings, a balance the court declined to upset by requiring live questioning in Title IX proceedings:
When crafting the precise procedures necessary to provide a meaningful opportunity to respond, however, a private university must balance competing interests, including the accused student’s interests in a fair procedure and completing a postsecondary education, the accuser’s interest in not being retraumatized by the disciplinary process, and the private university’s interests in maintaining a safe campus and encouraging victims to report instances of sexual misconduct or intimate partner violence without having to divert too many resources from its main purpose of education. (citations omitted)
“The court justified its ruling against live hearings and against even indirect cross-examination in part on” preventing retraumatization of the accuser, Dillon told Legal Insurrection.
“But the whole point of such a process is to decide whether there was even trauma in the first place. Assuming the conclusion and working backwards from that isn’t how either courts or colleges are supposed to do things.”
Brooklyn College history professor KC Johnson echoed these concerns:
CA Supreme Court: acc’d student’s right to fair procedure balanced against univ’s interest in encouraging more reporting and “the accuser’s interest in not being retraumatized by the disciplinary process.”
But if the allegation is false, how is the “accuser” “retrauamatized”? pic.twitter.com/mCpVo65IxK— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) July 31, 2023
The court agreed that the doctrine of fair procedure applies to private university disciplinary proceedings but still found against Boermeester:
We hold that, though private universities are required to comply with the common law doctrine of fair procedure by providing accused students with notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, they are not required to provide accused students the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine the accuser and other witnesses at a live hearing with the accused student in attendance, either in person or virtually.
The court elaborated that the doctrine of “fair procedure does not compel formal proceedings with all the embellishments of a court trial.”
“When sensitive, consequential matters are at stake such as the outcome of an allegation of sexual misconduct, formality and transparency – that is, a recorded, live hearing – are necessary to ensure a reliable outcome,” Teresa Manning of the National Association of Scholars told Legal Insurrection.
The court, citing “long-standing” precedent, reasoned private institutions were owed substantial deference in crafting disciplinary procedures:
Requiring private universities to conduct the sort of hearing the Court of Appeal majority envisioned would be contrary to our long-standing fair procedure admonition that courts should not attempt to fix any rigid procedures that private organizations must “invariably” adopt. Instead, private organizations should “retain the initial and primary responsibility for devising a method” to ensure adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. (citations omitted)
The California Hospital Association submitted a brief supporting USC on narrow grounds. “CHA’s interest in this lawsuit was narrowly focused on the possible impact the Court of Appeal’s decision could have on medical staff peer review proceedings,” CHA representative Jan Emerson-Shea told Legal Insurrection.
CHA praised the decision and noted “that hospitals will continue to afford such physicians [fair procedure] without the chilling effect on whistleblowers and the additional burdens on the hearing process that the Court of Appeal’s decision, if it had been allowed to stand, would have imposed.”
The California attorney general submitted a brief supporting USC but declined to comment on the decision.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sentence first, then the verdict!!
You will get a fair hearing after which you will be expelled. If the allegations are false as they often are, my bad for destroying your life. See “Duke Lacrosse”
Heh. Of course they don’t think that a young man being accused of a heinous crime–said accusation changing his entire life for the worse–is traumatic. Nah, no big deal.
Come on, cross-examination would just slow things down and expose false accusers, which may discourage future false accusers. Where would we be then?
(and sorry for the down vote, my error)
‘Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime’ – attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, head of the Soviet Secret Police.
Captain Obvious asks the musical question, “Given this idiotic decision, why in the wide world of sports would anyone consider attending a California school now?”
At this point the question is why any sane person with the ability to leave stays in California?
California is a rights-free zone.
Absolutely the right question.
Another example of the feminization of our institutions; replacing the primacy of logic with emotional tripe. Replacing transparency with an opaque process, rejecting actual fairness to the accused with make believe fairness to the accuser.
Over half of all rape accusations are false. Almost 100 percent of judges are corrupt jerks.
CA SC – lets pretend the 6th amendment to the US constitution doesnt exist
The sixth amendment applies only to criminal prosecutions. It doesn’t even apply to civil proceedings in court, let alone to the internal inquiries and procedures of a private corporation, which is what we’re dealing with here.
If your boss accuses you of some infraction at work, do you imagine you’re entitled to a full sixth-amendment trial before he fires you?! If a store accuses you of shoplifting, does it have to give you a full sixth-amendment trial before banning you from ever shopping there again?! If not, why should USC be any different?
Look up Doe v. Baum. The federal 6th Circuit disagrees with you. Ultimately there will likely be a SCOTUS case that settles this, but the federal courts are leaning towards due process rights in these types of cases, especially when the institution is a public one like USC is.
What are you talking about? Doe v Baum involved a public entity, which is of course subject to the 6th amendment. Here we are talking about a private entity. How is USC different from your boss, or from a department store?
If the university accepts federal funding, it is not exactly private; it is subject to federal regulations.
“The mere receipt of government funds does not transform a private entity into a federal agency”.
As a condition of such funding, private colleges agree to be bound by certain federal regulations, that’s all. They’re still private entities, and therefore not covered by the sixth amendment.
Effective cross examination requires follow-up questions based upon the answers provided.
Remember the “Grits” in My Cousin Vinney.”
Without follow-up questions, the truth would never have been discovered.
They’re not interested in the truth.
California constitution – perhaps the california SC should read their states constitution
Section 15 provides that the defendant in a criminal case has the right to a speedy public trial, to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant’s behalf, to have the assistance of counsel for the defendant’s defense, to be personally present with counsel, and to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant.
The California SC ruled that since the case was not actually a criminal trial, that Section 15 of the California constitution did not apply.
This is not a criminal trial. It’s not even a civil trial. It’s an entirely private procedure conducted by a private corporation, and the only consequences of losing are that the corporation will refuse to do business with you.
A star chamber?
No, it’s a private procedure of a private entity. In any state but CA there would be no right to any kind of due process at all.
Millhouse – I concur – I partially corrected myself with my 8:55 post where I stated that the California SC ruled that 6A of the US constitution and section 15 of the California constitution did not apply since it was a civil case and not a criminal case.
I am not sure whether the private vs public distinction is relevant / applicable since the CA SC ruled that it is civil matter which has not protection from 6A or section 15 since the right to confront witnesses is only protected under 6 A and section 15.
… the only consequences of losing are that the corporation will refuse to do business with you.
With all due respect, this is probably false. Other corporations will also refuse to do business with you if (when) they learn of it.
Put in context, this is a private college. If they expel you over the “civil matter” of alleged sexual misconduct, you are certainly free to apply to another private college to finish your schooling.
But what happens when you try to get your credits transferred? Your new school will contact your old school for your transcripts, see that you were expelled, and inquire as to why. What do you suppose they’ll do when they find out?
What do you suppose a future potential employer will do if/when they find out why you didn’t graduate college?
Of course, you could just not get your credits transferred and start over, and if you were expelled in your first or second year, that might be just a minor inconvenience. But if you’re 3 1/2 years (and tens of thousands of dollars in tuition) in, that’s a big deal.
Whether this guy committed the infraction for which he was accused or not, his scholastic life is probably over, along with any opportunities he might have had that require a degree, and many that don’t.
And nobody other than him and the girl will ever know whether the accusations were really true or false.
Those are still all private consequences, and therefore everywhere outside CA you have no rights at all.
Yes, it is a big deal, which is why the CA courts created a right to “fair process”, and that’s why this case even happened. He sued for fair process, so the court had to decide what exactly is included in that. It has always been understood that this CA right to “fair process” does not include everything that “due process” requires for criminal prosecutions. That’s not ever been in question. The question here was, given that “fair process” is less than “due process”, how much less is it? In this case the court decided that confronting your accuser is not included.
This situation might provide an ( expensive) workaround. Apply to transfer and when the recipient asks what happened there is an opening to sue USC for defamation as it is not a (judicially) determined fact that the alleged default actually happened. And since Usc knows that that is the case it has maliciously published the defamation.
That won’t work. All they have to do is say “he was accused of blah blah blah. We investigated it and determined to our own satisfaction that he probably did it, or at least that the chance he did it is too high for us to feel safe allowing him to stay. Accept him at your own risk.” Or, short and to the point, “We believe that he did blah blah”. Neither of those statements is actionable.
Due process? We don’t need no sitinkin’ due process.
In general, private corporations don’t owe anyone due process. In CA apparently they do, but that “due process” doesn’t have to follow all the requirements that apply to a criminal prosecution in a real court.
Public universities are state entities not private corporations.
USC is a private university.
Great. Who cares.
Indeed they are, and had this happened at a public university the case would have been very different.
Of course even then the outcome might have been the same, since the sixth amendment explicitly restricts itself to criminal prosecutions. But the entire basis for the case, and all the arguments, would have been different. He would not have been relying on the CA doctrine of “fair process”, which is something invented by the CA courts and only exists in that state.
Ok fine, I admit I don’t know the particulars of the CA university system (and frankly don’t care). but a simple response noting USC is not a public university would have sufficed. And whether any federal and/or state statutes or rules would impose any obligation to afford some degree of due process is another question that neither you nor I are qualified to fully comment on.
It’s not about the “particulars of the CA university system”, whatever that is. It’s about a specific university. You guessed, for no reason at all, that it was a public one; 20 seconds of looking it up would have told you that it is private.
I guess I could have clarified that my comment referred to the the specific law and regulations governing the CA university system, but I frankly I don’t care because whether a public or private university what the CA Supreme court has countenanced here is fundamentally unfair.
You still don’t get it. This is not at all about any “specific law and regulations governing the CA university system”. USC is not part of any “CA university system”. It is a private university. Full stop. There are no “specific laws and regulations” governing it.
This case is about a general law, that exists in California and nowhere else, that when certain private entities decide that someone has done something they must afford that person what the law calls “fair procedure”. It’s got nothing to do with universities per se; it applies equally to employers and several other kinds of entities. And the question decided here is what exactly that “fair procedure” consists of. Anywhere else the case would never have started, because the college would not have owed the plaintiff fairness of any kind.
I fear you are confused. I believe my point was that the CA S Ct. is approving an unfair process. That seems pretty state specific to me.
And you are still hopelessly confused. You are the one who started talking about the supposed “particulars of the CA university system”, and the supposed “specific law and regulations governing the CA university system”, that you professed not to know about. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SUCH THING. USC is not part of any “CA university system”. It is a PRIVATE CORPORATION. How many times do you have to be told that before it penetrates? This entire case was about a right that was invented by the California courts and exists only in that state, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with any “university system”, let alone with its “particulars”.
What do you mean, who cares? Your entire point was that it’s a public university. And your entire point is FALSE. Therefore the entire way you viewed this story collapses, and you should acknowledge that you were mistaken.
No actually my original point was mocking the fundamental unfairness of the CA Supreme Court. Whatever legal jargon is used, the CA decision imposes an unfair process. But, to reiterate, I don’t much care about the CA university system, in any iteration, or the state of generally CA. Nor do I care or respect the CA S Ct.
Default –> assault
Fair procedure is a common law doctrine that arises from a line of groundbreaking decisions of the Supreme Court of California dating back to the 1880s. Certain types of private actors (especially professional associations, unions, hospitals, and insurance companies), due to their overwhelming economic power within certain fields, cannot arbitrarily expel members or employees or deny persons admission for no logical reason; they are obligated to provide a rudimentary form of procedural due process (in the form of notice and a hearing).
Note the words “rudimentary form”. Even in CA, which is the only state where this right even exists in the first place, it doesn’t require the full due process that the government owes people.
Whatever happened to the right to cross examine witnesses in such proceedings? This may require SCOTUS scrutiny
There is no such right. Not even in CA, which is the only state where you have any rights at all in such proceedings. In every other state, as far as I know, a private entity such as USC is not required to give you any sort of fair hearing at all, let alone one with all the rights listed in the sixth amendment. It can just say “We think you’re guilty, and we don’t want to do business with you”.
Of course, if the University’s policy includes a hearing to determine the merits of an accusation, it is obligated to follow whatever procedures are spelled out in its relevant policy documents. But you’re correct that USC would not be required to adopt a policy granting rights to a hearing or specifying a procedure for dealing with accusations of sexual assault.
There can’t be any SCOTUS scrutiny because “fair procedure” is purely a CA doctrine that doesn’t exist in federal law.
As Milhouse points out, the decision to attend a private educational facility come with certain risks. Choose wisely. This will further alter college populations to further and further female only. In a world of increasing Karenistas all male colleges may be needed….
Already at a 60% female to 40% male split and growing each year.
Who owns the bulk of student debt? d/prog aligned voters in two primary groups:
1. White female college grads with degrees in low paying fields and next to worthless in the job market degrees that end in ‘studies’.
2. Black and Latino former students who racked up debt but didn’t graduate, also largely female.
The old joke was that women attended to get their MRS degree… it will be the same but Mrs. and Mrs.. College isn’t what is used to be for most…. and it continues only for being part of the elites exclusionary policy.
MRS degrees no longer the rule. Recent surveys state that women in college are self reporting an AVERAGE of 7 sexual partners per academic year.
Unfortunately many women had adopted the idea that they can run around having sex with as many partners as they want in a consequence free manner. While adults can make their own choices those choices always have consequences.
I predict a surge in angry bitter man hating women in their late thirties and older population.. oh wait that’s already here. We had a 35 year HS reunion last year and nearly everyone was divorced; about 85%+ and we are gen X.
Many of these women get married late, from a biological/child birth perspective, in their late 20s to mid 30s. They have a few children then they get bored or the 7 year itch and file for divorce. Women initiate about 80% of divorce filings and overwhelmingly it is via ‘no fault’. They aren’t abandoning their vows for traditional reasons of abuse or infidelity but b/c they are ‘unhappy’.
It isn’t confined to millennial and gen Z either, gen X has been crushed by the feminization of our culture, no fault divorce laws, outdated notions of alimony and child support. IMO, the best way to restore and strengthen marriage is to end no fault divorce entirely or at minimum offer the up front no changing your mind option of a traditional or modern marriage. Tie no fault divorce to the modern marriage and insulate traditional marriage from it.
The sexual revolution is well and clearly coming to an end. As Wendell Barry says, there is no such thing as safe sex. I have long thought that for the good of the child’s education schools should be same sex from middle school on. Now I think that will become a good idea for colleges. No young white man in these places should ever go behind a closed door with a female. Young black men may have some measure of additional protection, but not much. However they are much more likely to suffer an accusation from a lib female who has serious regrets about the reputational damage from a cross racial consensual tryst.
Indeed.
Of course there are other grounds for lawsuits, such as defamation and breach of contract. It’s not as if you have no recourse whatsoever outside California. But in CA you have this right to “fair procedure”, so this guy tried suing under it, and lost. He may still be able to sue on other grounds.
It’s unethical not to allow the cross-examination, but it’s a private entity, so the accused isn’t being deprived of any rights.
These so called judges put their agenda ahead of the constitution, common sense or established law. They know they are wrong and will be overturned but the agenda is helped on the short term by their ruling and the turmoil. Anyone who opposes them is a racist and anti-women.
On the contrary, you are the one putting your own feelings ahead of the law and the truth, and making claims you know are nonsensical, such as dragging the constitution into it, when you know private entities are not bound by it.
They are not wrong, and who do you think can overturn them? This is the California Supreme Court, ruling on a doctrine that only exists in California law. So this is the highest possible authority on the matter. The CA courts invented the doctrine in the first place, so they decide how it applies. End of story.
Milhouse; The inane noise coming from your mouth only shows how wrong you are. The turmoil create by this nonsense strengthens the liberal idiocy. When this is overturned hardly anyone will notice. Thus the stupidity of it benefits the liberals.
It’s good to have Milhouse back.
Again, who exactly do you think has the authority to overturn this? It’s the highest court in California ruling on a doctrine that only exists in California law. There is no higher authority to which he can appeal.
Thus the only “inane noise” is coming from you.
Interesting. The right to confront one’s accusers is an unalienable right, except in leftist land where statutes can take it away. But since respecting unalienable rights is the hallmark of a republican form of government, and since the Constitution insists states are to have a republican form of government, one can only conclude that CA and other blue states are tyrannical, despotic, and therefore illegitimate.
No, it is not a right at all, except in criminal prosecutions. States do have republican forms of government; what the hell does that have to do with this case, which is about a private entity? Does your business or employer have a “republican form of government”? What about your family?
Milhouse is correct (gasp!) — generally, private entities are not required to extend full protections and rights in any internal review. This is how private hospitals do credentialing and peer review, companies do HR reviews, and so on. Not everything has to be a courtroom drama.
However, Milhouse, rather, his defense, is also opening a can of worms — the public generally expects that private entities behave and not use their power to do things that the public would find to be unjust or abusive. Further, private entities are indeed constrained in various ways (e.g., civil rights acts, title IX, etc.). So the key two principles that private entities should generally be seen as being fair, and can indeed be required by government to provide protections and rights in its reviews, are sitting there today.
Someone just has to connect the dots.
Further, Milhouse, focused on the particulars of the law, ignores (or to be charitable, has not yet opined on) the ethical and moral issue of someone, accused of a vicious crime (for that is what sexual assault is if being reviewed by a regular court), who is constrained from being able to defend himself. Anyone with any sense understands that ethical dilemma, and also understands the consequences — expulsion by a university with that listed on a transcript may not be five to ten in the state prison, but it is still a significant life penalty that will follow one the rest of one’s days. An average citizen would be forgiven for thinking that with such a penalty that there should be appropriate protection to the accused as well as justice for the victim. That of course is the sine qua non of a legal proceeding, and the inability to provide ‘justice’ will inexorably lead to new or changed law. One cannot forever perpetrate something that most people believe to be unjust simply by hiding behind the law.
The California SC declined to make what most ordinary citizens would regard to be a needed correction — when threatened with life-altering consequences of a ‘private’ decision, there must be adequate protection in the review. That doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t be done. No, the California state government won’t do so, not that group of moral lightweights, but a federal judge just might. Then it’s to the USSC, and that court today (I think) would favor ensuring that people have their reasonable rights protected, not just in public proceedings but also in private ones.
That may indeed create new problems but I’ll then remind the powers that be at USC: you brought it on yourself.
This is not a moral question; if you don’t like how USC does business, don’t do business with it. It’s entirely a legal question.
Remember that in 49 states the plaintiff would have no rights whatsoever. The case wouldn’t even start. It’s only in California that the courts have decided private entities do owe people some sort of “fair process”, and therefore the court had to decide the extent of that process. It’s always been obvious that the “fair process” private entities owe people in CA is not as extensive as the due process that the government has to give people in criminal prosecutions. The only question here was how much less extensive, and the court in this case decided “this much less”.
Is USC being fair? No, it isn’t. But how much fairness does it owe the plaintiff? Again, in any other state that wouldn’t even be a question, because the answer would be “none at all”.
OK, I’m going to ask the nagging question.
This “trial” is referred to not once but several times as a “Title IX Proceeding.”
Title IX isn’t a California thing, it’s a federal thing.
Are there no due-process standards in it?
There are standards, and he can go to federal court over those. But since it happened in CA, where there is a separate state right to “fair procedure”, he tried suing for that and lost. His remedies under Title IX are still available (if he hasn’t already gone that route and lost).
It’s said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Claiming that a legal question has no moral question to it isn’t far behind.
OK, so you’re an employer and one of your employees has accused another of stealing his lunch from the break room fridge, or of stealing things from his desk drawer. You look into it and satisfy yourself that the charge is probably true. How much of a “fair hearing” do you owe him before firing him? How much legally, and how much morally? In most places you don’t legally owe him anything. In CA the courts have said you owe him “fair procedure”. But are you saying that morally you owe him not just that but the full rights that he would be afforded were he to be charged with a crime?!
It’s oppressive to question a woman’s delusions, and women are a protected class.
I may be getting ahead of myself… but I wouldn’t be surprised that down the road just making the accusation will be enough.
(Interesting to note that CaSC and USC both assume that being questioned about the attack in a private setting does not traumatize the student.)
The accusation has been enough to destroy for decades. Only later on in criminal or civil proceedings with established rules of evidence does the University kangaroo court process and judgement get exposed for the farce it is.
The justification is that women are always right and their accusations true…. depending on party affiliation.
It already is, even in criminal trials. Your life will be destroyed even if you aren’t convicted or bankrupt. The fact that you were charged with a sex crime isn’t, so far as I know, a sealed matter. Anyone doing a background check on you will find out, and background checks are very common these days when applying for employment or leasing a residence. You will very likely be unable to get more than a menial job or live in nice apartment.
Defamation cases brought will result in proper procedure. We are seeing more of those now and expect a deluge. If a university expels someone for one of these “crimes” they will be the target of the suit along with the accuser. It won’t be long and the procedure will be more like “resign” from the university and everything will be kept quiet. A lot of young men are going to learn some serious lessons about life and women from this. Some will learn the easy way from the bitter experiences we are seeing and some will have to learn the hard way because they are stupid.
Again, don’t fsck where you work.
I take it you have never been a college student, or you were one before coeds existed.
And I take it that you’re desperate enough to fsck anything that moves.
Title IX is part of a Federal law, is it not?
It is, but it is mostly concerned with the accuser’s rights, not with the accused’s. Title 9 is why they have to do something about the complaint in the first place. What they do, and what rights the accused has, are not specified. As far as I know the only way the accused can claim a Title 9 violation is to allege that the college is systematically biased against men, which is of course true, but many plaintiffs have found that proving it is difficult. So long as the college claims “Sure, we were unfair to you, but not because you’re a man”, you have no Title 9 claim against it. Claims would have to come under different headings, such as defamation, breach of contract, or, in California, “fair procedure”.
The appellate courts and supreme court need to further address the 6th amendment rights of defendants subject to “legal” proceedings, the outcome of which can result in serious punitive measures, where for all practical purposes the “legal” proceeding is a criminal proceeding masquerading as a civil or private matter. In this case the defendant was accused of a crime. This was not a dispute over whether the couple had eloped and were married, or whether one or the other had fulfilled their obligation to pay rent or share gas money. The defendant was charged with a criminal offense. And the penalty was as serious as any criminal penalty. At the very least anyone accused of a criminal offense should have the right to demand that the charge be brought forward in a criminal proceeding, so as to afford them all of their 6th amendment rights.
Seriously?! If a store accuses you of shoplifting, are you seriously suggesting that before banning you it must afford you a full criminal trial, as if it were a criminal court considering sentencing you to prison?! Or that it must make an actual criminal complaint, and then see whether the DA wishes to prosecute, and not ban you until and unless you are convicted?! That’s stupid.
Ditto if your employer accuses you of something and wants to fire you. Do you claim that, if what you’re accused of constitutes a crime, the employer must swear out a criminal complaint, wait for the DA to decide whether to prosecute, and wait for the outcome of a criminal trial, before firing you?!
Where would you get such a right from? Who gave it to you? What if you’re acquitted but the store or employer still believes you did it; should they be forced to continue allowing you to shop there, or to continue employing you?!
As usual you are confused. In the case at hand a plaintiff accused a defendant of a crime and sought adjudication of that crime, and punishment for that crime, through a third party in a forum which denied the defendant the right to confront and cross-examine their accuser. In your hypotheticals, both store owner and employer are themselves the victims of the alleged crime. Of course they have the right to continue or discontinue their association with the offender according to their own belief of the truth. The USC student can do the same. What none of them can do is to accuse someone of a crime, and then seek trial and punishment in a forum which denies the defendant normal criminal due process.
No, you are confused. The fact that the alleged conduct happens to be a crime is irrelevant. The accuser didn’t go to the police, so she was not seeking criminal penalties, or even adjudication. She wanted USC as a private entity to cease doing business with him, so it is entitled to conduct whatever procedure it likes to determine, to its own satisfaction, whether it should believe her and what it should do about it. Except that in CA it has to use “fair procedure”, which is something more than what it would owe in any other state, but less than “due process”. And this case was about determining the exact line. That’s all.
I can’t believe all of the misogynists that have crawled out of the woodwork.
Believe All Women!!! They never lie about stuff like this
Justice Groban is the only white male on the court (an improvement from a couple of years ago when there weren’t any). There are three black justices in a state only 5% black. But then I suppose the people of California are totally on board with all of this anyway. What puzzles me is why a TItle IX case under federal law was brought in the state court system.
I do recall, however, when this case first broke, that the complaint was not made by Boermeester’s girlfriend at the time, Zoe Katz, but rather by a third party. In fact, Zoe defended him and continued to see him even after the alleged violent incident took place.
It was brought in the state court system because it was not a Title 9 case. He was not suing under Title 9 but under the “fair procedure” doctrine, which exists only in California. Thus the only possible place he could go was the California courts.
I am not a lawyer so I don’t understand how this squares up with the 6th Amendment. Can anyone enlighten me? Thank you.
It’s not a criminal case, but a civil matter within the confines of a private business (the University of Southern California). There are no potential jail penalties or fines involved, so it’s not a matter for the courts at all (at least not on the basis of what was argued before the California Supreme Court). As Millhouse observes elsewhere, this is like an accusation of wrongdoing within a workplace (e.g., someone accuses you of taking their sandwich from the office fridge); the employer doesn’t have to get the police and district attorney involved and wait for the resolution of a court case in order to fire you.
So chalk one up for the University of Spoiled Children.
Regardless of the to and fro on this, it involves a physical attack and will eventually be contested on 6th Amendment grounds at 1 1st St NE in DC.
No, it won’t. There won’t be a criminal prosecution unless she goes to the police and asks for one, and the DA agrees to prosecute. And if that happens he will have all the rights guaranteed in the 6th amendment, so there will be nothing for him to contest.