Before coaching at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), Geoff Bond was a rowing coach at the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn). During his time at UPenn, multiple members of the rowing team allegedly expressed concern about Bond’s coaching style and behavior, which included having an unfair selection process, sexually charged insults, ineffective training methods, and publicly shaming rowers that utilized UPenn’s psychological services.
After leaving UPenn, Bond was hired by UCSD. Katie McGann, the associate athletic director in charge of Bond’s hiring, allegedly rushed the process and did not research why Bond left the UPenn position.
B.L. enrolled at USCD in the fall of 2019 and joined its men’s rowing team. B.L. was previously diagnosed with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, gained thirty pounds in middle school, and struggled with obesity, a matter he discussed with his team and coaches. As months progressed, Bond allegedly engaged in “explosive behavior,” including making sexually inappropriate comments, and having unprovoked rage-filled outbursts.
In early January 2020, several women accused an athlete on the men’s rowing team, Z.B., of sexual harassment and assault. B.L. had multiple conversations with Bond about Z.B. because he was troubled by UCSD’s refusal to take action against Z.B. and Z.B.’s continued presence on the team. B.L. subsequently decided to contact others at UCSD concerning the Z.B. matter. Thereafter, Bond verbally attacked B.L., shouting comments about B.L.’s weight and demoting him on the team.
B.L. met with McGann about Bond’s psychological abuse, and McGann told B.L. he could report the conduct directly to the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD) (which was not the University’s policy) or see a therapist.
In April 2020, B.L. completed an anonymous survey for McGann about the men’s rowing team, and B.L. complained about Bond’s failure to report the allegations against Z.B. to UCSD, Bond’s retaliatory conduct, and notified UCSD that he had a few fleeting thoughts of suicide throughout the process, but did not reveal them because he was afraid of the implications. McGann responded to B.L.’s survey and assured him that any issues reported to her were reported up the chain to OPHD properly.
B.L. reached a stable place towards the end of 2020 and returned to UCSD. In December 2020, B.L. informed Bond that he was opting out of the upcoming rowing season. On January 4, 2021, B.L. took his own life.
B.L.’s parents filed suit against UCSD, McGann, and Bond (collectively, the Defendants), alleging, among other claims, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The defendants moved to dismiss.
Under California law, to establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. The threshold question for this case was whether there was a legal duty of care owed to the plaintiff. In general, there is not a duty of care to protect a plaintiff from harm at the hands of a third party, but one exception is the special relationship doctrine, which often applies when one party relies on the other for protection and has superior control over the means of protection.
Here, the parents argued that their negligence claim was not reliant on a special duty to prevent B.L.’s suicide, but rather McGann owed a duty to protect B.L. from serious mental harm, which occurred when she negligently failed to discover Bond’s history of abuse and to discipline or investigate Bond after learning about the psychological abuse of B.L. and the sexual harassment of the rowing team.
The Court concluded that universities do have a special relationship with students while they are engaged in activities that are part of the school’s curriculum or closely related to its delivery of educational services. This includes athletic team settings.
However, the special relationship does not mean UCSD must protect B.L. from all foreseeable injury. Based on current California precedent, the Court concluded that there is no duty that universities have to protect students from non-physical harm.
The Court considered a number of policy considerations in regulating student conduct. It noted that it used to be that universities stood in loco parentis, however, the current legal landscape has shifted to a “bystander” era, where the privacy and autonomy rights of adult students outweigh a college administrator’s authority to control student behavior. Imposing a duty on a university administrator to prevent emotional distress could threaten the independence and autonomy students seek. The Court considered that university employees might otherwise force students complaining of harassment to seek mental health treatment when other, less intrusive resources are available to address the harm (e.g., rules against harassment, reporting complaints to the harassment office, and accessible mental health services.) The Court also raised concerns about students’ privacy interests and the potential increased cost of tuition for universities to protect against liability for intangible harms.
For these reasons, the Court concluded that it was not going to impose on a university a duty to protect its students from non-physical harm. The Court dismissed the negligence claims.
Lilly v. Univ. of Cal.-San Diego (S.D.Cal. Sep. 30, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 179075.
Note: This Court had both parties prepare briefs on the specific issue of whether universities must protect students from non-physical harm. This matter may be appealed, as California’s Supreme Court has not decided this issue. These obligations are also distinct from the K-12 setting, where schools do stand in loco parentis for students and have greater duties to protect students from non-physical harm.