Teacher v. Cal. W. Sch. of Law

77 Cal.App.5th 111

292 Cal.Rptr.3d 343

Christopher TEACHER, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW, Defendant and Respondent.

D078550

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed April 5, 2022

Hathaway Parker, Mark M. Hathaway and Jenna E. Parker, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, Hollis R. Peterson, Camille L. Gustafson and Jeffrey P. Michalowski, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent.

AARON, Acting P. J.

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Christopher Teacher filed a complaint seeking a writ of administrative mandate ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 )¹ (first cause of action) against California Western School of Law (CWSL) challenging the procedures that CWSL followed in expelling him from the law school.² The trial court denied Teacher's request for a writ and entered a judgment in favor of CWSL.³

Teacher appeals from the judgment. On appeal, he claims that CWSL failed to provide him with a fair administrative process in expelling him, among other contentions.

The contours of the common law right to "fair process" Doe v. Regents of University of California (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 494, 513, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 513 ( UC Davis ),⁴ in private university student disciplinary settings is both unsettled and evolving. (See, e.g., Doe v. Westmont College (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 622, 634–635, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 ( Westmont ) [reviewing case law].)⁵ However, one component of the right to fair process is well established, commonsensical, and undisputed: "Where student discipline is at issue, [a] university must comply with its own policies and procedures." ( Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 851 ( USC ).)

CWSL violated this principle in expelling Teacher. CWSL's disciplinary procedures expressly provide, "The student or the student's spokesperson shall have the right to cross[-]examine witnesses." Notwithstanding this provision, CWSL did not afford Teacher the opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses on whose statements CWSL relied in reaching its decision to expel Teacher. In light of the fact that CWSL entirely deprived Teacher of this important right guaranteed by its own procedures, we reverse the judgment, emphasizing that we do not reach any conclusion as to Teacher's commission of the misconduct that CWSL alleges.⁶ We remand for further proceedings.⁷

II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The underlying incidents⁸

1. The September 30, 2017 incident

On September 30, 2017, "a number of emails were sent from [J.E.'s] CWSL student account with explicit sexual, racist or inappropriate content. The [person who sent the e-mails] also printed approximately 200 [plus] pages of study material and other various documents."

2. The January 13, 2018 incident

The Summary describes another incident that occurred on January 13, 2018, in which inappropriate e-mails were sent from the e-mail account of A.F.⁹ According to the Summary, A.F. had been using a computer in the "350 building student lounge," on CWSL's campus and thought she had logged off, but "computer records show that she did not log off." The Summary states that various documents were printed from A.F.'s account.

B. Proceedings at CWSL

1. CWSL's Code of Student Professional Conduct

CWSL has adopted a Code of Student Professional Conduct (CSPC). Article II of the CSPC is titled "Standards of Conduct," and provides:

"CWSL students are truthful, responsible, and professional toward each other and all other members of the CWSL community. They do not take unfair advantage of each other, nor do they engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, theft, misrepresentation or harassment. They also must not violate CWSL's published policies. Students have an obligation to report known violations of this Code and assist in its enforcement."

Article III of the CSPC is titled "Procedures for Enforcement," (Procedures). Section 3 of the Procedures provides for a process of "Informal Administrative Disposition," which may culminate in an administrative sanction of "suspension for no more than one term, with or without conditions."

Section 4 of the Procedures is titled "Formal Professional Responsibility Committee Disposition" and provides in its entirety:

"The Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, Vice President of Student Life, or the Assistant Dean for Student and Diversity Services may, in his or her discretion, directly refer a case for formal hearing to the Professional Responsibility Committee (PRC). A formal PRC hearing shall also be held if requested by an accused student prior to administrative disposition or within 10 days thereafter. The PRC may dispense with a hearing and informally resolve any matter submitted for formal hearing.

"All hearings shall be at the time and place determined by the PRC. The PRC shall appoint the members of the Hearing Panel, which may include members of the PRC. The Hearing Panel shall review all matters de novo.

"The Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, Vice President of Student Life, the Assistant Dean for Student and Diversity Services, or his or her designee shall present relevant evidence to the Hearing Panel. The accused student has the right to be present, to receive a statement of the charges against him or her, to be personally heard, and to present appropriate evidence and arguments. The accused student may also elect to have a spokesperson present during the hearing. The student or the student's spokesperson shall have the right to cross[ ]examine witnesses. The Hearing Panel shall determine the admissibility of evidence without being bound to rules of evidence and/or procedure."

Section 5 of the Procedures outlines how the Hearing Panel shall resolve matters referred to it and provides, "A majority of the Hearing Panel shall announce its decision and shall prepare a final written report." In addition, if the Hearing Panel finds that the student has violated the "Standards of Conduct," the Hearing Panel shall "state the applicable sanction," including "suspension for more than one term or expulsion from the Law School." Section 5 further provides that any sanctions shall be imposed as follows:

"The Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, Vice President of Student Life, and the Assistant Dean for Student and Diversity Services, in consultation with the Dean, shall impose all sanctions, as determined by the Hearing Panel. A Hearing Panel Report which imposes a sanction shall become part of the sanctioned student's record."

2. CWSL's letter to Teacher setting a PRC hearing

The administrative record indicates that CWSL conducted an investigation into the incidents described in the Summary. On February 7, 2018, CWSL's Vice Dean of Academic Affairs, Donald Smythe, sent Teacher a letter accusing Teacher of committing the following violations of the CSPC:

"1. Obtaining unauthorized access to the accounts of two other [CWSL] students, on September 30th[,] 2017 and January 13th, 2018, and using those accounts to send inappropriate emails to a number of faculty and students as well as one alumnus. These were violations of the CSPC both because of the misrepresentation of the identity of the sender and also because the emails were offensive or abusive in nature.

"2. On both occasions using those accounts to print a number of items that were then charged to those students. These were violations of the [CSPC] because they were tantamount to thefts from those other students."

Dean Smythe informed Teacher that a formal PRC hearing would be held to consider the allegations, as follows:

"Under the Law School's Regulations, the Professional Responsibility Committee needs to hold a hearing to consider those charges (a copy of the CSPC is attached). The hearing is scheduled for Monday, February 12th, at 4PM in the Boardroom on the 2nd floor of the 225 Building. It will not be a trial and it will not be similar to a trial. I do not anticipate that there will be any witnesses or other persons who will be present to provide additional information. All of the other information to be considered is in the form of emails and computer logs. You have previously had an opportunity to see those documents and may review them before the scheduled meeting. They are being held at the front desk of the Vice Dean's office. Under the Regulations,^[10] you are entitled to bring a spokesperson to the hearing if you wish to do so.

"If you have any questions about the charges against you or the hearing, please address them to Dean Bashant."

3. The hearing

On February 12, 2018, a Panel of the Professional Responsibility Committee (Panel) held a hearing to consider the matter.¹¹ There is no verbatim transcript of the hearing. The administrative record contains notes (Notes) summarizing the hearing.¹²

The Notes state that at the outset of the hearing Dean Bashant indicated that that "Panel has reviewed the packet of info." Neither the Notes nor any other document in the administrative record indicates what documents were contained in the packet. However, the Notes indicate that the hearing consisted of a discussion among the Panel members, Teacher, and Dean Bashant about the incidents, apparently based on documents contained in the administrative record.¹³

The administrative record includes the following documents:

1. Copies of e-mails allegedly sent during the incidents;

2. Copies of e-mails pertaining to the scheduling of interviews between Teacher and CWSL administrators during the investigation;

3. Dean Bashant's Summary;

4. Copies of e-mails allegedly sent during the incidents with annotations apparently written by Dean Bashant;

5. Copies of e-mails sent either to or from Dean Bashant pertaining to her investigation, including e-mails from Teacher;¹⁴

6. A document with the handwritten words "rough timeline" pertaining to the September 30 incident apparently prepared by Dean Bashant;¹⁵

7. A security official's January 14, 2018 incident report pertaining to A.F.'s disclosure of the January 13,

...