Above: a map of southern California schools sued. The snapshot comes from our Title IX Lawsuits Database.

Like numerous schools, California State University posts their Board of Trustees meeting records online. While usually mundane, they are occasionally illuminating, as they can give us an insider’s view on trends the University regards as impactful.

While preparing our Legal Database for relaunch, I stumbled upon CSU’s Annual Litigation Report, which is part of their BOT meeting records. This report, finalized by Executive Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Andrew Jones, is filed annually during March, tracking data since the previous March.

After reading the report, I’ve concluded that CSU is on a mission to get sued by male students at least once every 3-year cycle from each of their 23 campuses for due process/Title IX violations. I’m being a bit hyperbolic, of course, but if litigation trends continue it may not be unrealistic.

Their Litigation Report provides us with some useful graphs. Let’s unpack the report, starting with their graph below on historic case volume below:

As you can see, litigation against the CSU system has nearly doubled in the last six years, jumping from ~60 lawsuits to  106. Looking at the far left of the graph, we observe that this trend started at the same time the Obama-era Department of Education released its April 4, 2011 “Dear Colleague” guidance letter, which severely infringed upon the due process rights of accused students.

Is this overlapping timeframe a coincidence? We need not speculate; Jones tells us why litigation has increased in the report:

Considering the broad range of issues for which a university system could be sued, it’s remarkable that “sexual misconduct discipline” is given its own bullet.

Such litigation has “gone up considerably,” but what percentage of the total are these lawsuits? We do not know exactly, but we can approximate based on the below pie chart:

Student claims make up 29% of the total. Note that there are student claims other than due process. Here are two others, as examples:

Mackey, et al. v. CSU, et al. The report describes the case:

Students Lynette Mackey, Kianna Williams, Danielle Cooper, Sierra Smith, and Crystal Hicks, all current or former African American basketball players on the CSU San Marcos women’s basketball team, filed a lawsuit alleging claims against the University and Coach Sheri Jennum for race discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and negligence. On March 3, 2017, the court granted CSU’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit and the appeal is currently pending.

And the summary for Apodaca v. Silas Abrego, et al:

Plaintiff Nathan Apodaca, president of Students for Life (“SFL”) at California State University San Marcos, filed a lawsuit arising from the denial of SFL’s application for ASI Leadership Funding, which is funded by mandatory student fees, to pay a speaker to attend a SFL event. The denial was based upon ASI Leadership Funding guidelines which specifically prohibits payment of speaker fees. Plaintiff also challenges ASI’s allocation of mandatory student fees to fund the Gender Equity Center and LGBTQA Pride Center, which plaintiff alleges both engage in speech he opposes. Plaintiff alleges violations of his First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law rights. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

But then, there’s the all-too-familiar claim in Doe v. CSU, et al.:

“John Doe” filed this petition for writ of mandate challenging his expulsion from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo after he was found responsible for sexual misconduct. He alleges that he was improperly disciplined following a Title IX process that was unfair, lacked due process, did not comply with the law or University policy, and where charges were not supported by the evidence.

We added this lawsuit, among numerous others mentioned in the Litigation Report, to our Legal Database. Side note: some attorneys we may be familiar with have been very busy in Los Angeles Superior Court over the past few years!

The last graph isn’t very illuminating, but is useful nonetheless:

A large number of settlements (nearly 2/3), and unfortunately no judgments against CSU. This is not entirely surprising, considering that CSU has money to throw away on settlements…unless these trends continue.

Note that the above chart applies to all cases, of which student conduct and due process cases are merely a segment.

As of 2017, the CSU system enrolled nearly 500,000 students across its 23 campuses, making it the largest four-year university system in the country. It was inevitable that they would be sued, as in our litigious age it’s more a question of when, not if larger institutions are sued. But CSU is also located in a state whose politics are not known for its empathy for men as a group, which increases its likelihood of being sued in this manner considerably.

CSU’s motto is Vox Veritas Vita, which means to speak the truth as a way of life. It doesn’t seem like they are terribly concerned with finding truth when it comes to investigating sexual misconduct accusations, however. Like many institutions, lawsuits against them are primarily viewed as a cost of doing business, rather than topics for ethical considerations.

Therefore, the only way to “change their mind” in regards to what is ethical is to make unethical practices unprofitable. So far, we’re on the right track.