USC continues to make a name for itself, in no small part due to the actions of Title IX Coordinator Gretchen Dahlinger Means and the determination of plaintiffs like former student Matthew Boermeester. By all appearances, Boermeester – like many former USC students – has been railroaded out of school in an administrative process that sounds like something out of an Orwell or Kafka novel. He has been fighting a legal battle against USC in state courts since 2017, and yesterday he filed a new suit in federal court, California Central District. The lawsuit has been added to our Title IX Lawsuits Database.

The judge in the federal case is LBJ-appointed Manuel Lawrence Real, a California native. Although he is Latino, his last name carries the English pronunciation instead of the Spanish (“real,” not “reál”). One of the older federal judges, he is 95 years old. Interestingly, Judge Real graduated from USC in 1944, long before this Title IX madness began and twenty-eight years before Title IX was written into law. It would be interesting to hear his opinions on what USC has become. Based on our records, this is the first Title IX case of this type Judge Real has heard.

Matthew Boermeester is a name familiar to the due process movement and sports fans. He was a star kicker for the USC Trojans and a successful student on track to graduate in May 2017. In January 2017, however, he found himself accused of dating violence against his girlfriend and fellow student Zoe Katz. Katz was not his accuser, however. Instead, throughout the entire ordeal that followed, Katz insisted Boermeester was innocent and had been wrongly accused. The accusation was fourth-degree hearsay that came from the father of another student named Tanner Smith, who was the roommate of another student named Dylan Holt who supposedly, while looking through a window around midnight on January 21st, saw physical conflict between Boermeester and Katz. Since Tanner Smith’s father was a USC employee, he was required to report the claim to the USC administration.

USC took the accusation very seriously, and Boermeester – despite both him and Katz appealing the school’s decision – was expelled.

The Title IX Coordinator for USC’s proceedings against Boermeester was the aptly-named Gretchen Means, now famous for (among others) such actions as:

• Expelling student Armaan Premjee, whose criminal case fell apart due to video evidence. The judge commented there was such scant inculpatory evidence that the case had not even met the “minimal” pretrial burden of “reasonable suspicion.”
• Remarking to a colleague, “Does that college motherfucker know who I am?” when another student she expelled initiated an appeal. Her derogatory vindictiveness is further demonstrated by her comment that “We know how to handle football players” who are accused of misconduct.
• Costing USC over $100k in attorney’s fees awarded to a former student who successfully sued the school after being accused of sexual assault and expelled.

What is Means’ background? A Daily Trojan article described it when she was appointed Title IX Coordinator in January 2016:

Gretchen Dahlinger Means, formerly serving as an expert for sexual assault and complex litigation in the United States Marine Corps, was appointed as the executive director of the Office of Equity and Diversity and USC’s Title IX Coordinator Thursday. In the Marine Corps, Means served primarily in the Western Region. She established domestic violence and sexual assault protocols that are now implemented nationwide across the Corps.

That’s scary, and it should raise suspicions as to what is going on in the USCMC.

We’ve written about USC as well. The school was already beginning to make a poor name for itself regarding due process in late 2017, when one of our contributors wrote about the school’s persistent hostility and double-standards against male students that sparked numerous lawsuits and investigations. USC has been sued many times in state court, and the majority of those cases have been successful. One of the most famous of these suits is the one Bryce Dixon (also a former USC athlete) brought which went to the California Court of Appeal, resulting in a decision requiring cross-examination of accusers and witnesses in administrative proceedings that hinge on credibility.

Alleged Deficiencies in USC’s Title IX Investigation

Boermeester’s federal Complaint is compelling, listing many deficiencies in USC’s process and the character of its administrators, in particular Gretchen Means. Here are some highlights:

• The accusation was fourth-degree hearsay in which the alleged victim insisted the accused was innocent and even went so far as to assist him in jointly appealing USC’s decision
• Upon being accused, Boermeester received an interim suspension without notice or hearing.
• Katz was consistently referred to as a “reporting party” despite the fact that she never made a report, demonstrating bias at minimum and – more accurately – a falsification of records by USC.
• Katz made a statement about the questions Means and Title IX Investigator Lauren Helsper asked of her. Katz said they manipulated her “into saying things about [Mr. Boermeester] and our relationship that were greatly exaggerated or totally untrue. In hindsight, it is now clear to me that the University had an agenda at that time and that they were using me to further that agenda.”
• Gretchen Means and Lauren Helsper made fabricated claims that Katz had bruises. They attribute this claim to a statement by Katz, a statement which was never recorded and which Katz denies.
• Means conducted a physical examination of Katz, which proved that there was no evidence of physical harm. However, she “failed to document and disclose this critical piece of information in the investigation record.”
• Means demonstrated a witch-hunt mentality against football players in particular, menacingly stating “We know how to handle football players.”
• USC maintained Boermeester’s interim suspension, citing a need to keep Katz safe. However, Katz was consistently spending time with Boermeester off-campus, often by her own initiative, demonstrating that she was quite safe and the no-contact order was unnecessary.
• USC failed to interview witnesses whose statements Boermeester offered as exculpatory evidence, and did not even mention in their report that Boermeester had offered them.
• USC threatened Boermeester with additional charges if he contacted witnesses in attempts to gather exculpatory evidence.
• USC obtained exculpatory video evidence of events on the night of the incident. According to Katz, Means interviewed her and made false statements about what the video contained. Katz was never allowed to see the video. When Boermeester learned of the video and asked via his attorney to see it, Means retaliated against him by asking him how he could possibly know of the video unless he had been in contact with Katz in violation of the no-contact order he had been issued.
• Katz claimed, “I was also told that I could be charged and investigated if I spoke to anyone who they decided to call in as possible ‘witnesses.’”
• Boermeester had a knee injury that needed treatment, and USC’s interim suspension prevented him from obtaining the treatment and rehabilitation he needed to heal.
• Boermeester’s academic record was tarnished, since he was given Fs for the classes he was barred from attending just as those classes began.

Some other noteworthy elements that help the case:

• Boermeester is a character who evokes sympathy. He was academically and athletically successful, enriched the school by his performance, and by all appearances had an imminent graduation yanked from him by a witch-hunting administration that contributed to his injuries physically, academically, and psychologically.
• USC is not an institution that evokes sympathy, given their history. They are losing case after case for good reasons.
• This cannot be overstated: Andrew Miltenberg and Mark Hathaway are both working with Boermeester. They are top-tier Title IX / due process attorneys with a long record of success and experience.

The state court case against USC is currently in appeal status, having lost in Los Angeles Superior Court when Judge James Chalfant denied their writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal has yet to hear oral arguments. The federal court case has just begun. The charges are as follows:

1. Title IX (both erroneous outcome and selective enforcement)
2. Due process
3. Breach of contract
4. Promissory estoppel
5. Negligence
6. Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The 9th Circuit and California generally are known for their left-leaning politics. Politicians of the left such as Kirsten Gillibrand, the Obama administration (which implemented the infamous Dear Colleague letter), etc., are well-known for their hostility to civil liberties like due process and egalitarian applications of Title IX when it comes to the rights of male students. It’s noteworthy that California courts have not consistently followed suit, however; some of the strongest state court decisions supporting expelled students have come from California.

We look forward to seeing how this case develops in federal court.