Ganci Law Update: EP17 Recent Court Decisions on Post-Graduation Student Status and Faculty Discipline

In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci delves deep into two critical court cases that have caught the attention of the legal world. 

Balakrishnan v. Regents of the University of California

• Background: In 2017, an anonymous letter was published online, accusing a UCSC professor of a pattern of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault against young women and gender-nonconforming individuals. This letter included seven firsthand accounts of alleged abuse and called for the University to take action. Over 150 people signed the letter in support. Consequently, a Committee disciplined the professor according to the Faculty Code of Conduct. The professor argued against this disciplinary action.
• Key Question: Can a UCSC professor be justifiably disciplined under the Faculty Code of Conduct based on allegations of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault outlined in an anonymous letter, even if the professor contests the disciplinary action?

The court ruled against the professor. It stated that the professor's conduct, which included an incident at a party, where he climbed naked and uninvited, into the bed of a female academic and rubbed his genitalia against her, created an unsafe environment and hindered the purpose and values of an academic institution. Additionally, the court upheld the University's finding that the professor's conduct towards Jane Doe at the party was subject to discipline under the Faculty Code of Conduct.

Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc.

• Background: In this case, a regional center arranged for a developmentally disabled person to be placed in a residential facility. The facility later informed the regional center that it could no longer provide the required level of care to the individual. While the regional center was in the process of finding a different facility, the person attacked and injured the facility's administrator. The administrator sued the regional center for her injuries.
• Key Question: Does a regional center have a duty to protect the employees of a residential facility if it fails to immediately relocate a developmentally disabled person as requested by the facility?

The court answered "No," stating that no such duty existed. The court further clarified that even if regulations suggest recognizing a duty to protect, this duty applies solely to the consumer (the developmentally disabled person) and not to the employees of the residential facility. The court emphasized that the relevant Act is concerned with the well-being of the consumer, not those who interact with the consumer.

To learn more, please see the cases below:

1. Balakrishnan v. Regents of University of California, 2024 WL 371554.
2. Shalghoun v. North Los Angeles County Regional Center, Inc. 2024 WL 277313

Learn more about Eric Ganci