Substantial evidence supported the University’s imposition of a one-year suspension on a male student who, it found, had digitally penetrated a woman student’s vagina despite her strenuous objections. The woman’s testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the discipline. The University’s procedures were adequate as well. The student was given notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to defend himself against those charges. Given the seriousness of the charge, he was entitled to some opportunity to question his accuser, but not full cross-examination. The University allowed the student to submit written questions to the hearing panel which then asked them of the accuser. That was an adequate procedure.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (Huffman, Acting P.J.); November 22, 2016; 2016 WL 6879293