CA JUDGE Orders CSU Long Beach to Junk TitleIX Finding Against Male: & Allow X-Examination
At a hearing this week, Judge James Chalfant of L.A. Superior Court confirmed his ruling that Cal State University-Long Beach denied “John Doe” several elements of a “fair procedure”: It didn’t give him “proper notice” or the opportunity to “respond to all evidence” used against him or cross-examine his accuser in “live hearing testimony.” One of the more unusual findings was that multiple witnesses disputed what Title IX Investigator Carol Fulthrop had attributed to them in her report, which Chalfant repeatedly characterized as of “poor quality.” The case involves two graduate research assistants. The dispute concerns whether Doe forced Roe to touch his penis or Roe did it unprompted on one occasion, and whether their sexual intercourse in her office on a later occasion was forced or consensual. Chalfant found numerous problems with CSULB’s investigation. The judge scolded CSULB for saying Doe “unquestionably” knew what he was facing because campus police had interviewed him and Roe had filed for a restraining order. There’s no evidence he even met with TIX Coordinator Caveness, much less “what was said in the meeting,” owing to Investigator Fulthrop’s “poor quality” report, nor that the police interviewed Doe on the given date. TIX Investigator Fulthrop said that even if Doe’s account of their intercourse was accurate that didn’t meet the school’s affirmative-consent standard. Doe was found responsible. The judge hammered Fulthrop again for the quality of her report, which did not show that the university gave Doe the evidence “that would be considered by the decision-maker” or even specify who the decision-maker would be. Chalfant stated, CSULB is required by “case law and their own policies” to give Doe its own evidence against him, which “differed significantly” in content and governing standard. Chalfant notes that Doe’s appeal shows his witnesses disputed Fulthrop’s “characterization of their statements” in her final report, which was withheld from Doe until he was found responsible. The judge goes on at length:
‘Respondents seem to believe that there is no requirement that its investigator take notes and document witness statements. This is wrong. It is true that there is no obligation to take notes, but an investigator’s failure to do so reflects poorly on the investigation. More important, CSULB had a duty to provide Doe either with written witness summaries or at the absolute minimum, oral witness summaries (the court does not believe that oral summaries would be adequate except in the simplest cases). The school cannot shirk its obligation by not preparing summaries.’
thecollegefix.com By Piper Judge Chalfant’s Tentative Ruling
