John Doe v. Gonzaga Universit

Facts

(Most if not all of these facts were left out of the casebook). While P was an elementary education student at Gonzaga University (D), he had a sexually intimate relationship with Jane Doe, a student who was studying special education at Gonzaga. Roberta League (League), D's teacher certification specialist, overheard student Julia Lynch (Lynch) talking with another student about Lynch's dissatisfaction with the way the school dealt with complaints of date rape. Lynch had observed Jane Doe in obvious physical pain, which Jane Doe said was the result of having sex with 'John.' Lynch was angry that no one from Gonzaga had bothered to find out what had happened. League recognized the name 'John'; she knew P was a student teacher in the education program at Gonzaga. League decided to take matters into her own hands and informed Dr. Susan Kyle (Kyle), D's director of field experience for student teachers, what she had overheard. Kyle and League decided that they needed to investigate the situation. League was concerned that the allegations she had overheard about P might affect the dean's ability to submit an affidavit supporting P's application for teacher certification. The two women met with Lynch on October 14, 1993. According to Lynch, Jane Doe told Lynch that P had sexually assaulted her three times in late November or December 1992. Lynch also said that she accompanied Jane Doe to the student health center soon after the last assault, and the nurse concluded that Jane Doe had been date raped. It was alleged by hearsay that P verbally coerced her into participating in 'aberrant sexual behavior' with 'other objects besides his penis,' and urged Jane Doe to engage in multiple partner sex. League and Kyle asked Lynch to see if Jane Doe would speak with them about her relationship with P. Jane Doe became angry and told Lynch that she did not want to make a complaint. Lynch told Kyle and League of Jane Doe's response. League also contacted Adelle Nore, an investigator for the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), the state agency which certifies teachers. League and other Gonzaga personnel spoke with Nore by telephone numerous times about the allegations of Ps alleged sexual misconduct, and League identified P to Nore by name. Kyle eventually met with Jane Doe and told her about the date rape allegations. Jane Doe refused to make a formal statement. Jane Doe talked with Professor William Sweeney (Sweeney), who later described her as near hysteria and weeping uncontrollably. Sweeney testified that Jane Doe told him that P had sexually assaulted her on three occasions, each time more violent and abusive and that she screamed and tried to get away. According to Sweeney, Jane Doe also said that P repeatedly threatened her life and that she did not believe the university could protect her from him. In January 1994, Jane Doe asked Janet Burcalow (Burcalow), chair of the department of teacher education, not to pursue the matter. Jane Doe would not say that nothing happened, and Jane Doe admitted being afraid that P would be angry if he found out she had talked about their relationship. Cheryl Lepper, an instructor in the teacher education department, testified at trial that Jane Doe told her in the spring of 1993 that P had forced Jane Doe to have sexual intercourse with him. According to Lepper, Jane Doe said John Doe had restrained her, forced her to have sex, and had then stalked her after she broke up with him. In February 1994, Dr. Corrine McGuigan (McGuigan), dean of the school of education, met with League, Kyle, Burcalow, and Sweeney. McGuigan obtained written summaries of the narratives they presented to her and later concluded that there was sufficient evidence of a serious behavioral problem to preclude her from signing the moral character affidavit supporting P's application for teacher certification. P learned about Gonzaga's investigation of him on March 4, 1994, the same day he made his final payment of fees and tuition to Gonzaga. P received a call asking him to come to McGuigan's office. He was escorted to a private room and left to read a letter from McGuigan. The letter explained that in light of allegations of sexual assault, McGuigan would not give P the moral character affidavit required to support his application for certification to teach. McGuigan refused to tell P who had made the allegations against him. Testimony was also presented that when P and his parents asked about their appeal rights, they were told there were none. In both the videotaped deposition and a 1995 deposition, Jane Doe denied that P had sexually assaulted her. She denied that she had made many of the statements that Gonzaga personnel attributed to her. She testified that Lynch had 'really blown things out of proportion,' and that there were falsehoods in the declarations of Kyle, Burcalow, and Sweeney. She testified that some of the things that happened in her sexual relationship with John Doe made her uncomfortable. P testified that he and Jane Doe had sexual intercourse on five occasions. He said he stopped when she seemed uncomfortable, and she never asked him to stop. P presented the testimony of roommates that they never saw or heard any indication that Jane Doe was unwilling to engage in sexual intercourse. He presented the testimony of two former girlfriends that P never pressured them to engage in sexual activity, never tried to talk them into sexual activity uncomfortable to them, and never criticized them for not engaging in sex. P testified that he found 'a lot of lies' when he read the declarations of League, Kyle, Burcalow, and Sweeney. P said that Gonzaga destroyed his career in teaching, his goals, and his dreams. P brought an action against Jane Doe and Gonzaga. P sued Jane Doe for falsely accusing him of sexual assault or rape; he sued Gonzaga for republishing the accusations 'both between and among staff and faculty of Gonzaga and by reporting the same to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.' P sought to recover from Gonzaga for defamation, negligence, and breach of educational contract. He also brought a separate action against Lynch, League, and Kyle, individually, and the two actions were consolidated by stipulation. Jane Doe cross-claimed against Gonzaga, alleging defamation and negligent investigation. She counterclaimed against P for sexually assaulting her. P and Jane Doe agreed to dismiss their claims against each other in September 1996. P's amended complaint asserted claims for defamation, intrusion into his private affairs, and a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim for violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b) (FERPA) against all parties, and claims for negligence and breach of educational contract against Gonzaga. The jury returned a verdict in John Doe's favor, awarding him damages as follows: Defamation $500,000, Breach of Educational Contract $55,000, Negligence $50,000, Invasion of Privacy $100,000, Violation of 'FERPA' Rights $150,000 Punitive Damages for FERPA Violation, $300,000. D appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the negligence, invasion of privacy, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and breach of contract awards and remanded for a new trial on the defamation claim. The appellate court also held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to impose CR 26(g) sanctions against Gonzaga for discovery abuse. The trial court was ordered, 'to impose an appropriate sanction on remand.' P then appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.