Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
The Regents of the University of California succeeding in having a three year old Title IX case dismissed on summary judgment. Although the facts of the case are wildly disturbing, the federal district court found that the circumstances surrounding the sexual misconduct were so far out of the control of the university that it could not be held liable.
But before y'all go grab the pitchforks and start marching on the Berkeley administration buildings, the facts rather strongly support the dismissal on summary judgment.
Facts Are the Worst
After several years of litigating this matter, the UC Regents were left with just a single plaintiff with some rather attenuated claims. In short, while working a summer job, in another state, for a program completely unrelated to the university, where the student earned no academic credit, the student was sexually assaulted (groped) a few times by the same perpetrator (who also worked for the same program). The victim reported being groped to her boss, who offered to help, but the student refused, stating that she handled it. Solely based on a reading of the summary judgment order, the groping incidents were bad, to say the least, and likely should have been reported to the police.
After the summer, the student returned to campus. During that fall semester, her roommate was the victim of a sexual assault. This led the plaintiff to talk to campus investigators, and eventually, her own assault over the summer was raised. In the end, the UC was unable to really do anything as it had no control over that environment, or the people there. As a result, the plaintiff joined the instant Title IX case alleging that the university failed to adequately investigate sexual assault claims.
Unfortunately for the student, as described, there was not enough connecting the university to the conduct.