Kamila v. Univ. of Kan.
| Decision Date | 21 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 121,249,121,249 |
| Citation | 469 P.3d 106 (Table) |
| Parties | Raymond KAMILA, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Edward N. Foster, of Caldwell Law Firm, P.C., of Kansas City, Missouri, and Joshua Ritter, pro hac vice, of Werksman Jackson & Quinn LLP, of Los Angeles, California, for appellant.
Michael C. Leitch, senior associate general counsel, of the University of Kansas, for appellee.
Before Standridge, P.J., AtchesoN, J., and Burgess, S.J.
After considering the testimony of 10 witnesses and reviewing hundreds of pages of evidence presented at a formal administrative evidentiary hearing, a panel appointed by the University of Kansas (University) Vice Provost for Student Affairs recommended that Raymond Kamila be expelled for violating multiple provisions of the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities (Student Code). The panel made this recommendation in a 23-page, single-spaced written report detailing its findings of facts and its conclusions based on those facts. After reviewing the written report from the panel and all of the hearing materials, the Vice Provost issued a decision letter to Kamila informing him of the agency's decision to expel him from the University for nonacademic misconduct and to ban him from campus for a period of 10 years. Kamila filed an internal appeal with the Judicial Review Board. After reviewing the record and the University's governing rules, the Chair of the Judicial Review Board denied Kamila's request for a hearing to review the University's decision to expel him. Kamila then filed a petition for review with the district court under the Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA), K.S.A. 77-601 et seq. After reviewing the agency record and the briefs, the district court affirmed the University's decision to expel Kamila, finding that he "failed to meet his burden to prove that the University's actions were invalid on any of the grounds asserted in the Petition." Kamila now appeals to this court, claiming that the University's decision to expel him: (1) exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction because it was based on off-campus conduct, (2) was not supported by sufficient evidence, and (3) was arbitrary and capricious. Finding no error, we affirm the district court's ruling.
The allegations leading up to Kamila's expulsion were based on Kamila's misconduct with regard to two different women while all three were students at the University. Although the allegations are similar, they are unrelated. Before setting forth the underlying facts relevant to each allegation, we find it helpful to review the administrative and procedural history that led to this appeal.
Administrative and district court proceedings
On April 3, 2017, B.W. filed a formal complaint with the University's Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access (IOA) alleging that Kamila had harassed and stalked her in violation of the University's Sexual Harassment Policy. On April 4, 2017, IOA notified Kamila about the complaint and issued a No Contact Directive prohibiting him from directly or indirectly initiating physical, electronic, or any other contact with B.W. Kamila was notified of both the complaint and the order of no contact later the same day. The IOA conducted a formal investigation into B.W.'s complaint, which included interviewing both B.W. and Kamila, as well as the 12 witnesses identified by B.W. As part of its investigation, the IOA also reviewed evidence provided by B.W., which included copies and screenshots of a multitude of messages to B.W. and some of the other witnesses from Kamila's real Facebook account and what B.W. believed to be Kamila's fake Facebook accounts.
On April 28, 2017, E.T. filed a formal complaint with the IOA alleging that Kamila had harassed and stalked her in violation of the University's Sexual Harassment Policy. That same day, IOA notified Kamila about the complaint and issued a No Contact Directive prohibiting him from directly or indirectly initiating physical, electronic, or any other contact with E.T. The IOA conducted a formal investigation into E.T.'s complaint, which included interviewing both E.T. and Kamila, as well as one witness identified by E.T. As part of its investigation, the IOA also reviewed evidence provided by E.T., which included copies of text messages, e-mails, and pictures that Kamila sent to E.T. between April 5 and April 27, 2017.
On June 23, 2017, after concluding its investigation into both B.W.'s and E.T.'s allegations, Shane McCreery, the University's IOA Director, sent a 28-page, single-spaced Administrative Report of Investigation to Dr. Tammara Durham (Vice Provost for Student Affairs), Lance Watson (Director, Student Conduct and Community Standards), and Aramis Watson (Associate Director for Residence Life). With regard to B.W., the IOA Report set forth her allegations, a detailed summary of the results of the interviews it had conducted with B.W. and Kamila as well as each of the 12 witnesses interviewed, the documentary evidence, the University's Sexual Harassment Policy, comprehensive findings of fact for each allegation, credibility assessments regarding information provided by B.W., Kamila, and the witnesses, a lengthy analysis section at the end of which it determined its finding of facts supported a conclusion that Kamila violated the University's Sexual Harassment Policy, and a recommendation to expel Kamila without terms for readmission and a minimum three-year ban from campus. Specifically, the IOA Report found Kamila had engaged in nonacademic misconduct under Section VI of the Student Code, which subjected University students and organizations "to disciplinary action for violations of laws, published policies, rules and regulations of the University and Kansas Board of Regents, and for the following rules related to the values of the University where the university has jurisdiction." The IOA found Kamila violated the University's core value of respect by:
As a result of these Student Code violations, the IOA recommended that Kamila "be expelled from the University without terms for readmission and receive a minimum three-year ban from campus."
With regard to E.T., the IOA Report similarly provided a detailed summary of the results of the interviews it had conducted with E.T. and Kamila as well the witness identified by E.T., the documentary evidence, the University's Sexual Harassment Policy, comprehensive findings of fact for the allegation, credibility assessments regarding information provided by E.T., Kamila, and the witness, a lengthy analysis section at the end of which it determined its finding of facts supported a conclusion that Kamila violated the University's Sexual Harassment Policy, and a recommendation to expel Kamila without terms for readmission and a minimum three-year ban from campus. Specifically, the IOA found Kamila violated the University's core value of respect by:
On July 24, 2017, Watson sent Kamila a letter informing him that both of the IOA investigations were complete and that the IOA Report of Investigation had been submitted to Watson for review in his capacity as Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards. In this letter, Watson summarized the factual allegations against Kamila, set forth the applicable sections of the Student Code Kamila was alleged to have violated, informed Kamila that the results of the IOA investigation established Kamila had violated those sections of the Student Code, and told him that the IOA recommended Kamila be expelled from the University. Based on the IOA's recommendation of expulsion, Watson advised Kamila that the cases would be resolved through a formal hearing. In the letter, Watson makes reference to a prior communication, in which Kamila apparently told Watson that he wanted to have the cases resolved through a single hearing and that he planned to have two advisors attend the hearing with him, one of which was his attorney. Watson advised Kamila in the letter that he was permitted to have up to three advisors attend the hearing and that he could submit written materials into the Formal Hearing Panel file as long as he did so at least six days before the hearing. Watson further advised Kamila that the entire Formal Hearing Panel file would be available for him to review beginning three days before the hearing.
The hearing was held on August 10, 2017. Kamila appeared at the hearing in person and with his lawyer. The University presented testimony from seven different witnesses, including the alleged victims, and Kamila's lawyer cross-examined five of these witnesses. Kamila had the opportunity, but declined, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial