Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ.
| Decision Date | 27 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | A165818,A165842 |
| Parties | JOHN M. HEINEKE Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Respondent. JOHN M. HEINEKE Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. 18CV332285, 18CV333011
Following a series of decisions, culminating in an administrative hearing before the faculty judicial board (FJB) at Santa Clara University (SCU), the FJB upheld the finding that Professor John Heineke had sexually harassed a SCU student (Jane Doe) in 2015. SCU terminated Heineke's tenure and fired him. Heineke filed a petition for administrative mandamus review of the FJB decision and a civil action against SCU and Doe. In the mandamus proceeding, the superior court found that Heineke was not entitled to writ relief. In the civil action, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, disposing of the entire case.
In these consolidated appeals, Heineke challenges both decisions. In the mandamus action, Heineke contends SCU did not provide him with a fair hearing and failed to adhere to its own procedures governing the hearing process and that there is not substantial evidence to support the FJB or the trial court's findings of fact. In the civil action Heineke contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance to allow additional discovery and briefing and granting summary judgment.
Although SCU's faculty handbook could more clearly set forth the procedural steps for adjudicating student-teacher sexual harassment cases and it is not clear that SCU scrupulously adhered to the letter of its provisions, we conclude that Heineke has not shown he was deprived of a fair hearing or that SCU prejudicially deviated from handbook procedure. Further, we find there was substantial evidence to support the findings of both the FJB and the trial court. In the civil action, we find that the trial court did not err procedurally or substantively, except as to one count of the defamation cause of action against Doe (for republishing her accusations to an unnamed witness, outside of the litigation context). We thus affirm the order granting summary judgment as to SCU but reverse as to Doe, solely as to the defamation cause of action.
Heineke became a tenured professor of economics at SCU, a private institution, in 1972. His employment was subject to the faculty handbook, a part of his employment contract with SCU.
In 2015, Jane Doe, a Chinese national and MBA student, enrolled in "Econ 3400," a required graduate course taught by Heineke. During the winter quarter, at her request, she repeatedly met with Heineke in his office outside regular office hours, for help with the course material. Doe earned an "A" grade and accepted an offer to serve as Heineke's teaching assistant (TA) for the same course in fall 2015. During the spring term (April-June 2015), Doe and Heineke had lunch at off-campus restaurants four times, twice at restaurants she chose.
During the winter and spring 2015 terms, Doe sent Heineke many friendly, complimentary emails requesting and thanking him for help with the class and other matters, and for the TA opportunity. She called him a "very great and responsible professor" who had provided "kind help," referred to him as "sweet" and as a "friend," and used many smiley-face emoji.
While the nature and extent of Heineke's physical contact with Doe in winter and spring 2015 is hotly disputed, he admits having tried to "mentor" her in European/American culture, including once demonstrating the French style of greeting by pressing cheeks and kissing the air and hugging her several times. He claimed this contact was brief nonsexual, and at her request; as set forth below, Doe described the contact as extreme, extensive, and nonconsensual.
On June 17, Doe emailed Heineke to cancel a lunch. He expressed disappointment, as he had "made many changes" to the Econ 3400 materials that he wanted her to review while he was in Europe for the next several weeks. Doe apologized, writing that she had not realized he wanted to "discuss the TA thing" and had thought "it was just a casual lunch with a friend."
On July 12, Heineke emailed Doe that he would like to meet soon if she had "had a chance to look at the materials for the course." She replied that she had not and proposed meeting after August 11. He replied that he was "disappointed," as he would "have everything finished by then," and had been "hoping to have much more interaction with you as my assistant, [e]specially . . . about additions and changes in the course."
Doe responded that she was unavailable during summer break, as she had said before. She offered to confer by email in late July, adding, Heineke acknowledged "treating [her] different[ly]" because he believed her to be "exceptionally talented academically" and had planned to give her "far more responsibility than other TAs" so that he could "recommend [her] at a level [he] had . . . seldom [done]." Nonetheless, in view of Doe's schedule, he proposed "redefining [her] position as that of a regular TA" reducing the time commitment, and putting off any meeting until September.
Doe responded, "Every person deserves to be treated equally regardless of his/her race, sex, age, religion." Asked "how much responsibility" she would like, she replied, "I want to be a normal TA, doing all a TA's responsibilities." Heineke assented and, while noting that past TAs who "now have superb jobs" had benefitted from more intensive involvement including regular meetings, offered to "make it work with the least amount of time on your part as possible."
Despite the apparent agreement to defer a meeting until September, Heineke started emailing Doe in late July to see if she was available to discuss the materials sooner. She reminded him she would "not be around until beginning of the fall quarter." He emailed again in August and early September, asking her to review materials and eventually suggesting the need to meet was urgent. He then inquired as to her status on September 4, and again on September 5, asking her if she had received the materials. On September 7, he wrote,
About 50 minutes later, Doe replied she was "in a very intense program now," did not "even have time to sleep and eat," and was, as she had said, unavailable until
Six hours later, Heineke sent a long response (quoted at length in the margin[1]) expressing his disbelief, shock, and devastation, and suggesting his "gestures of friendship" had been misinterpreted by Doe due to cultural differences. He disclaimed any interest in Doe, other than her academic ability and role as a TA and asked again regarding her availability "to discuss the course."
The next day (September 8), Heineke emailed to ask if Doe "would still like to be [his] TA" He said he still believed her to be "eminently qualified" but suggested, "Do what you feel is best for you, but please let me know as soon as you can as it might take some time to find a replacement."
On September 9, Doe wrote, "Maybe I am not a master of other culture but I DID KNOW WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT SO DOES EVERY GIRL IN MY COUNTRY."
An hour later, Heineke replied that he was "devastated" and denied having done any "of the horrible things" Doe described.
On September 11, Heineke wrote, On September 13, and 15, he sent additional urgent inquiries, of which the latter read,
Doe did not reply. On September 21, she emailed SCU's equal employment opportunity office to report that Heineke ; when she did so, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial