David Urban authored an article for the Daily Journal that discusses recent cases involving students accused of sexual assault at colleges and universities. This is a rapidly developing area of law, which has undergone major developments on different fronts simultaneously. In the article, Urban discusses Austin v. University of Oregon (9th Cir. June 4, 2019), in which the Ninth Circuit approved the District Court’s dismissal of a Title IX lawsuit brought by three University of Oregon basketball players disciplined for sexual misconduct. The plaintiffs alleged that the University violated Title IX under three theories: “selective enforcement, erroneous outcome, and deliberate indifference.” The Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not provide a sufficient claim for relief under applicable pleading standards for any of these theories.
Although Austin does not involve California law, its reasoning is relevant in California because it expressly interprets federal standards for due process in the student discipline context. In a federal action for violation of due process rights, for example, a public institution in California may only need to argue that Austin’s very general discussion of due process rights needs to be satisfied for a university to prevail. However interpreted, Austin’s discussion of due process will likely provide California educational institutions some rare support in student rights litigation.
You can read the full article on the Daily Journal‘s website here.