Sherman v. The Regents of University of California

Background

Benjamin Sherman and Zayd Hammoudeh were students at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and both conducted research with Professor Dimitris Achlioptas. The opinion describes evidence that Achlioptas repeatedly used insulting, sexually explicit, and abusive language toward Sherman and Hammoudeh. Hammoudeh also reported comments referring to his race, religion, appearance, perceived autism, and national origin.

Hammoudeh first reported his concerns to University officials in August 2018. Sherman reported his concerns in December 2018. The University eventually placed Achlioptas on leave, initiated faculty-conduct and Title IX investigations, and accepted formal complaints from both students. The Title IX investigations later concluded or preliminarily determined that Achlioptas’s conduct violated the University’s sexual-violence and sexual-harassment policy.

The plaintiffs asserted seven claims against The Regents: deliberate indifference to sexual harassment under Title IX; Title IX retaliation against Sherman; deliberate indifference to race- and national-origin harassment under Title VI; Hammoudeh’s FEHA hostile-work-environment claim; FEHA discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin based on alleged unequal pay; intentional discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act; and deliberate indifference under the California Education Code.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, who opposed the motion.

Deliberate-indifference claims

The court denied The Regents’ motion on the Title IX, Title VI, and California Education Code deliberate-indifference claims. These claims concern whether the University, after receiving actual notice of the alleged harassment, responded in a way that was clearly unreasonable.

The court found a genuine dispute of material fact about the University’s response. The evidence included the nearly four-month period between Hammoudeh’s August 2018 communications and Achlioptas’s placement on leave, the lack of a University inquiry to Sherman during that period, conflicting evidence about when no-contact restrictions were imposed, and the plaintiffs’ evidence that they received little help navigating the University’s complaint systems. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the University’s actions inadequate, even though The Regents identified actions it took after receiving notice.

Sherman’s Title IX retaliation claim

The court granted The Regents’ motion on Sherman’s Title IX retaliation claim. Sherman alleged that University faculty members made offensive statements about him, interfered with authorship credit, delayed his degree, and harmed his employment prospects after he complained about sexual harassment.

The court held that Sherman had to show retaliation by the University itself, not merely independent actions by individual professors or committee members. The Regents presented evidence that University officials acted promptly after learning of the alleged retaliation, and Sherman did not rebut that evidence or respond to the University’s argument. The court therefore concluded that no genuine dispute showed that the University itself had been deliberately indifferent to the alleged retaliation.

FEHA claims

The court granted The Regents’ motion on Sherman’s FEHA national-origin discrimination claim. Sherman discovered the alleged pay discrepancy on June 16, 2018, but did not file the required administrative complaint until July 17, 2019, about 13 months later. The court held that the claim was untimely and that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply to the single pay decision described in the record.

The court denied The Regents’ motion on Hammoudeh’s FEHA national-origin discrimination claim. The court could not determine when Hammoudeh discovered the pay discrepancy, so it could not conclude as a matter of law that his claim was untimely. The court also found a factual dispute about whether national-origin discrimination was a substantial motivating reason for the alleged pay difference.

The court granted The Regents’ motion on Hammoudeh’s FEHA hostile-work-environment claim. The record showed that Hammoudeh had no communications or in-person interactions with Achlioptas after July 12, 2018, and Hammoudeh did not file his administrative complaint until July 19, 2019. The court held that the claim was time-barred.

Unruh Civil Rights Act claims

The court denied The Regents’ motion on both plaintiffs’ Unruh Civil Rights Act claims. The Regents argued that the University was not a “business establishment” covered by the Act and that the plaintiffs could not prove intentional discrimination or denial of an educational benefit or service based on protected status.

The court was not persuaded that The Regents could not qualify as a business establishment. It distinguished a public school district that does not sell participation in basic educational programs from the University, which charges tuition for educational services. The court also found a genuine dispute about whether the University inadequately responded to the plaintiffs’ harassment complaints and thereby intentionally discriminated against them.

Disposition

Judge Demarchi granted in part and denied in part The Regents’ motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion as to Sherman’s Title IX retaliation claim, Sherman’s FEHA national-origin discrimination claim, and Hammoudeh’s FEHA hostile-work-environment claim. The court denied the motion as to the Title IX, Title VI, and Education Code deliberate-indifference claims, Hammoudeh’s FEHA national-origin discrimination claim, and both plaintiffs’ Unruh Civil Rights Act claims.