Due Process, Bias, Adversarial Hearing Win for $119k

Biased Title IX investigation costs University of Southern California $116,965

…[negative] comment by investigator Patrick Noonan and Title IX Coordinator Gretchen Dahlinger Means, and their compliments toward the accuser, demonstrated “an unacceptable probability of actual bias” to Judge White. She also said Means held an “adversarial position” toward Doe, making her advisory role with the review panel “improper.”

Take note of the judges comments regarding due process that is a right in court and administrative hearings…

…Strobel had found that the student was denied a fair hearing because he wasn’t allowed to even indirectly cross-examine his accuser. The judge also said Pomona used a policy against him that wasn’t in effect during his disputed encounter with his accuser, and that the college invented a procedure on the fly to help his accuser.


The University of California-Santa Barbara was ordered to pay $31,000 after a Superior Court judge faulted its practice of asking investigators to consider contradictory explanations by accusers as legitimate in light of their “trauma.”

Such a practice provides an “unacceptable risk that the investigator was not unbiased,” and the accused student’s victory “enforced the right to due process” and also “conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons,” Judge Tara Desautels wrote.

“Courts are beginning to understand how the current Title IX investigation policies at most colleges and universities are unlawful and rigged against the accused student,” Hathaway told The Fix, summarizing these recent wins. “Until recently, there has been no cost to the schools for railroading accused students.”