Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingtrialcross-examinationcommon law

appealhearingcross-examinationcommon law

Related Cases

Boermeester v. Carry, 15 Cal.5th 72, 532 P.3d 1084, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 24, 419 Ed. Law Rep. 599, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7388, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7829

Facts

Matthew Boermeester was expelled from USC after a two-month investigation into allegations of intimate partner violence against Jane Roe, a fellow student. The Title IX office conducted interviews and gathered evidence, including eyewitness accounts and surveillance video. Despite the evidence, Roe later recanted her statements, claiming the Title IX office manipulated her. The investigation concluded that Boermeester violated USC's conduct code, leading to his expulsion, which he challenged in court.

USC's Title IX office received a report of an incident that took place on January 21, 2017. The office assigned a Title IX investigator to investigate the incident, who interviewed Roe two days later.

Issue

Did USC's disciplinary procedures provide Boermeester with a fair trial as required under California law, specifically regarding the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses?

We granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeal majority was correct in concluding that USC should have held a live hearing featuring real-time direct or indirect cross-examination of all parties and witnesses (whether conducted in-person or virtually) with an opportunity for Boermeester to ask the witnesses follow-up questions.

Rule

Private universities must comply with the common law doctrine of fair procedure, which requires adequate notice of charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, but does not mandate live hearings or cross-examination.

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.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether USC's procedures met the fair procedure standard. It concluded that while Boermeester was entitled to a fair process, the university was not obligated to provide a live hearing with cross-examination. The court emphasized that private organizations have the discretion to determine their own procedures as long as they provide a fair opportunity to respond to allegations.

We accordingly reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, affirming that USC's disciplinary process was sufficient under the fair procedure doctrine and that the lack of a live hearing with cross-examination did not constitute a violation of Boermeester's rights.

Who won?

University of Southern California prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that their disciplinary procedures complied with the fair procedure doctrine.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that while private universities must provide fair procedures, they are not required to allow direct or indirect cross-examination at live hearings.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password