WIN! For Innocent-Accused Male. Judge says TitleIX is Biased. USC Must Pay $112K
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Allen White ordered the University of Southern California to pay $111,965 of attorneys’ fees to an accused male student in an unfair Title IX investigation. In December 2017, Judge White granted the student’s court appeal, finding that USC did not adhere to its own policies when conducting the Title IX investigation, did not allow the accused student the opportunity to review all the evidence, omitted relevant evidence from the investigation report, and did not obtain all information relevant to the Title IX investigation. On March 19, 2018, Judge White entered judgment against USC and ordered USC to vacate the Title IX investigation findings issued against the student. During USC’s Title IX investigation, USC Title IX Coordinator Gretchen Dahlinger Means and USC Title IX Investigator Patrick Noonan were overheard on a conference call referring to the accused male student and his advisor as “motherfuckers” while describing the female student in favorable terms, as “cute”, “intelligent,” and “a catch.” Judge White found such statements to “amply demonstrate an unacceptable probability of actual bias” on the part of USC’s Title IX personnel. In ordering USC to pay the student’s attorneys’ fees, the Court found that, “…not only was USC’s Title IX Office improper biased against Petitioner and in favor of Roe in rendering the determination against Petitioner [cite], but also that USC’s Title IX Coordinator held an adversarial position in relation to Petitioner, rendering her advisory role with the purportedly neutral Student Equity Review Panel improper.” “Institutional bias is summed up in the Court’s finding that “Coordinator Means — a person who has expressed vitriol against Petitioner and favoritism towards Roe — is permitted to advise each purported decision maker in Petitioner’s disciplinary proceeding”– especially when Coordinator Means served as an advisor to the appeal panel as well.” Judge White also found that the student’s legal efforts provided “…significant non-pecuniary benefit… [on] a large class of persons — namely, individuals at USC who are accused of violating USC’s sexual misconduct policy where a Title IX investigation is conducted.” California’s Code of Civil Procedure sec. 1021.5 provides for an award of attorney’s fees when litigation results in a significant public benefit, in this case the right of college and university students to due process in Title IX investigations. John Doe, as the student is named in the court records, was initially granted a stay of his expulsion in July 2016 by Hon. Robert H. O’Brien, but USC obtained a reversal of that stay order from Hon. Suzanne Bruguera. In all, John Doe’s case was reassigned to nine different judges, three of whom teach at USC and recused themselves. John Doe was represented by Mark M. Hathaway and Jenna E. Eyrich, of Werksman Jackson Hathaway & Quinn LLP.
John Doe V. Ainsley Carry, et al. (USC) Los Angeles Superior Court Case No: BS163736
