In March 2019, three UC Berkeley students reported that, in separate incidents occurring in November 2017, November 2018, and March 2019, an intoxicated student engaged in increasingly aggressive conduct and forced them to participate in sexual activity without consent. Following the complaints, the University placed the student, referred to as John Doe, on interim suspension and initiated administrative proceedings under its sexual violence and sexual harassment policies. At the same time, the Alameda County District Attorney filed criminal charges, and two of the complainants testified at a preliminary hearing over several days, where they were extensively cross-examined by Doe’s counsel. The criminal matter concluded in February 2021 with a plea agreement.
The University conducted an investigation that included interviews of the complainants, the accused student, and multiple witnesses, along with a review of documentary evidence such as text messages, photographs, and transcripts from the criminal proceedings. The process culminated in an administrative hearing before a hearing officer in August 2021. The complainants did not testify at that hearing, but Doe testified, presented witnesses, and submitted arguments, including proposed questions he would have asked the complainants. The hearing officer issued a detailed written decision finding violations as to two complainants, based on credibility determinations that credited their prior statements and testimony and found Doe’s account was not credible. The University imposed the sanction of dismissal. Doe appealed internally, arguing procedural error, lack of evidence, and excessive delay, but the University denied the appeal and upheld the dismissal.
Doe then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate against the Regents of the University of California, seeking to set aside the disciplinary decision. He argued the University denied him due process because he could not cross-examine the complainants at the administrative hearing. Doe further argued that the University’s delay in completing the investigation prejudiced him. The Regents opposed the petition. The trial court denied the petition in a written order, concluding the procedures satisfied due process and that no prejudicial delay occurred. The trial court entered judgment for the Regents. Doe appealed.
The appellate court reviewed the administrative decision for procedural fairness and abuse of discretion. On the due process issue, the appellate court held that the student was not denied a fair hearing despite the absence of live cross-examination at the administrative hearing. Relying on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Boermeester v. Carry, the appellate court emphasized that due process in university disciplinary proceedings is flexible and does not require trial-like procedures or live cross-examination in all cases. The appellate court found it significant that the complainants had already testified under oath in the criminal hearing where they were subject to extensive cross-examination, and that those transcripts were available to the hearing officer. Doe also had the opportunity during the investigation to propose questions for the complainants, but declined to do so. The appellate court concluded that these procedures provided a sufficient opportunity to challenge credibility and that due process did not require the complainants to appear at the administrative hearing.
On the delay issue, the appellate court held that the length of the investigation did not constitute error. The University had good cause for extensions, including the complexity of multiple allegations, the number of witnesses, the pendency of related criminal proceedings, and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellate court further held that the student failed to demonstrate prejudice, as he did not identify specific unavailable witnesses or explain how any alleged delay affected the outcome.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding the University’s disciplinary process satisfied due process and that no prejudicial error occurred.
Doe v. Regents of University of California (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1245.