OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge reluctantly dismissed with leave to amend two civil cases against the University of California, Berkeley, that claimed the institution failed to do enough under Title IX to address two separate instances of sexual assault.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick conceded that UC Berkeley "bungled its response" to the two sexual assaults in questions, but said the ineptitude did not rise to the standard of deliberate indifference needed to make a case for money damages under Title IX.
"The deliberate indifference standard under Davis protects school administrations that do investigate and remedy complaints, and judges are not permitted to substitute their views for those of not clearly unreasonable administrators," Orrick wrote in a 28-page ruling issued July 28.
Instances of sexual assault on college campuses and whether they are treated seriously enough has vaulted to the national spotlight, prompting the Obama administration to carry out reforms that have sparked fierce debate on both sides of the issue.
The present dispute stemmed from an instance of sexual assault suffered by Sophie Karasek, who was groped while asleep by a male classmate during a weekend trip to San Diego with the Cal Berkeley Democrats Club in 2012.
The unidentified male student resigned from the club.
Karasek claims the university treated the matter with deliberate indifference, failing to tell her that a written complaint was necessary to prompt an investigation — a fact she found out by accident. Cal Berkeley then took more than eight months to respond to Karasek after the complaint was filed, at which time the perpetrator was scheduled to graduate.
Meanwhile, the university placed the perpetrator on disciplinary probation while requiring him to enter mental health classes and drug and alcohol counseling — a fact that was not disclosed to Karasek.
Karasek claims that the university's lack of communication, decision to go through informal disciplinary proceedings rather than a formal hearing and refusal to remove her assailant from the campus resulted in psychological harm and adversely affected her studies, forcing her to take part in a less rigorous major and causing her GPA to drop.
While Orrick chastised the university over its communication deficiencies regarding Karasek's case, the judge said that because the student was disciplined meant the facts as presented did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference as required by the legal standard.
"The university's failure to communicate with plaintiffs in a meaningful way prior to making its disciplinary decisions is a glaring deficiency in the university's process," Orrick said in the ruling.
The other plaintiff in the case, Nicoletta Commins, was sexually assaulted by a male assailant who performed oral sex and digitally penetrated the plaintiff without consent at her apartment on Jan. 20, 2012.
About 10 days later, the university placed the assailant on interim suspension. The following month, the university decided to allow the assailant to continue with his class schedule provided that he left the campus immediately after his classes ended.
In October of the same year, the assailant was convicted of felony assault for the attack on Commins and was sentenced to five years probation. Months later, the university suspended the assailant until August 2015, when Commins was supposed to graduate, placed him on disciplinary probation for the entirety of his remaining time at the university and assigned him a reflective writing assignment.
Follow @@MatthewCRenda
