BearGoggles said:

---

In CA, you do not need to immediately serve a lawsuit. In fact, you could dismiss the case without ever serving it in theory).

---

Are there jurisdictions that require service before the complaint can be filed? Who issues the summons? Or do they not use summons + complaint like we do here?

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In CA, you do not need to immediately serve a lawsuit. In fact, you could dismiss the case without ever serving it in theory).

---

Are there jurisdictions that require service before the complaint can be filed? Who issues the summons? Or do they not use summons + complaint like we do here?

---

In CA, I believe you file the lawsuit at which time the summons is issued. The plaintiff then has time (I believe 60 days minimum) to actually serve the complaint. So that allows a PR savy plaintiff's attorney to get the jump.

Big companies (and I'm sure Furd and other universities) have services that monitor all courts for filings and report them immediately. So even if you're not formally served, you can go to the courthouse (or in some places go online) and get a copy. I'm sure by now Furd has a copy. But plantiff's attorneys control the initial narrative and in a case like this, Federal privacy laws would potentially limit Furd's ability to issue a press release of confidential information.

BearGoggles said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/family-sues-stanford-after-student-who-spilled-coffee-on-friend-s-alleged-rapist-is-found-dead/ar-AA14EFTB?cvid=49f6b1bd24e343bfae90311f546eb412

The alleged rapist was a football player.

---

I read another article where they said the football player was "only" accused of sexual assault (forcibly kissing the soccer player on the field against her will). If it was rape there has been A LOT of covering up going on (again) on the Farm.

This coming out could definitely be a factor in Shaw leaving.

Contrast with Cal where we publicly announced an investigation of Hufnagel and Martin for sexual harassment and assault (that allegedly happened 6 months earlier) 2 days before our first game of the NCAA Tournament as a #4 seed, our highest seed ever.

---

Notice the language of the complaint, which is being parroted in the media - the deceased "spilled" coffee on the alleged rapist. Seems pretty obvious she threw it on him, which is an assault type offense that would trigger the university's code of conduct inquiry and not an accident like "spill" implies.

---

He said/she said. How do you know that the coffee spill was unwanted? Perhaps the alleged victim of the spill was a masochist who enjoyed scalding. Or perhaps it was a genuine surprise spill. When accosted by the rapist, she had a freakout and spilled her coffee. Accidents happen, and the university shouldn't have started disciplinary action in something like this.

I'm mostly making light of an awful situation and I feel horribly for this girl's family and friends, but it's pretty obvious that too many people have taken similar approaches to sexual assault allegations, particularly on college campuses. Some people bend over backwards to protect assaulters and assume that their actions were reasonable but when it's something that is relatively obvious (but quite minor) like throwing coffee at someone, people don't feel the need to reflexively defend the accused.

---

I don't recall anyone characterizing an alleged rape or grope/kiss as an "accidental insertion" or "inadvertent use of lips/hands." We say "alleged rape" or "alleged sexual assault" and the press reports it that way.

"Spilling coffee" implies the alleged action was accidental or at least not intentional. If that was the allegation here - an accident - she would not be subject to discipline. Clearly the allegation was an intentional targeted assault or battery with coffee. So its bizarre to whitewash an alleged assault/battery by referring to it as "spilling." In virtually any other scenario, we'd see the report as " [XXXX] was in disciplinary proceedings for allegedly assaulting/battering another student with coffee." Why is that not the case here?

I'm surprised you think throwing coffee at someone is quite minor. I've personally seen a family member severely burned by accidentally spilled coffee. I doubt that happened here (maybe it was ice coffee??), but I'm pretty sure most schools would discipline students who intentionally attack other students by throwing things at them.

I feel bad for the family, but this seems like a sad attempt by grieving parents to find meaning in (and shift blame for) their daughters suicide by filing a weak lawsuit. Katie was an adult with agency and she sadly decided to take her own life.

---

She claimed it was accidental. I suspect it wasn't, but that is why it is characterized in the complaint as accidental.

The guy was not hurt. That and the circumstances imply that this was not scalding hot coffee straight from the barista.

The guy specifically said he didn't want action taken against her and he wanted the issue dropped. Some administrative weenie insisted on making a federal case out of it and charging it through an official process.

They threatened to expel her 3 months from graduation and hold up her transcript over at worst throwing a cup of coffee on someone they were ticked off at. That is massive overkill. Should never have even been in the equation. I have no idea if this was to protect a football player, if it was to cover up a cover up of a sexual assault charge, or if it just some Barney Fife trying to feel important and an impersonal one size fits all administrative process - I suspect it is the latter - but Stanford effed this up, IMO.

Take away the charged atmosphere that it is a football player and that there was an allegation of sexual assault that was investigated, you really think when you were at Cal a woman throwing a drink on a guy she thought was an ass would have lead to an administrative action and threats of expulsion? Especially when the guy didn't want anything done about it? There would be a lot of women who wouldn't have seen graduation. Discipline her? Sure. I can see that. Threatening an academic death penalty? Shouldn't have happened.

Whether they are legally or in any way responsible for her suicide is a different question, but threatening to take action that frankly most people in her situation would have viewed as ruining her life over a thrown cup of coffee where no one is hurt is not appropriate and I hope they have learned from this that maybe they need to be a little more careful how they communicate their disciplinary proceedings.

---

Uh, you think that is why the university was trying to have her testify? Spilling coffee is not a expulsion offense, even at Stanford. They had an active investigation of a football player for sexual allegations agains a minor and she refused to testify. You waive that right under Title 9 rules.

---

I could be wrong, but what I heard reported was that the investigation of the sexual allegations had concluded with no charges to be forthcoming. And I hadn't heard about the testimony angle, but in any case, the letter threatening expulsion was over the coffee. If you are saying that was an attempt to push her to testify, that is still effed up. And in any case, threatening expulsion over not being willing to testify would still not have been cool even if they were within their rights to do so. I really don't think forcing women to testify about sexual allegations is the way to go here. Especially when those actions often have ramifications for that person.

But again, the disciplinary action was over coffee. That is the relevant action. The sexual allegation has nothing to do with THAT case.

---

Apparently I'm wrong. It was about her attack on the player who was alleged to have kissed another soccer player. The parents indicated in previous articles which I can post that the conduct was related to the investigation where she was supposed to defend her fellow player. That changed in the complaint they filed. Stanford said that it was false and misleading that it was over throwing coffee, but I just read their latest statement (see below) and the misconduct at issue involved something she did the football player. There may be some other or additional conduct at play that "resulted in physical injury". Otherwise I don't understand the false and misleading comment made by Stanford. Discovery on this will no doubt be interesting.

I want to share this news story from Stanford University with you: https://news.stanford.edu/?p=45916

---

Obviously, both sides' lawyers are going to play to their strengths. Stanford's statement implies that she was withholding information by saying she was given the chance to provide more information at the end of the process and didn't, when after 6 months I'm not sure what else there is to say. "I was riding my bike and accidentally spilled coffee on him." "He says it was on purpose." "It wasn't". "Really? You happened to 'accidentally' spill coffee on the guy you think assaulted your teammate?" "Yes." After 6 months of investigation, I think they had all the information. She has no incentive not to clear it up if she had anything else to provide.

Obviously, her lawyers are dragging the sexual allegations into it to put Stanford in a bad light, make them look like they are protecting the football team, and care more about spilled coffee than a sexual assault. I get what they are doing, but honestly, I think it is a mistake. I think they are muddying the waters. I think their best case is "Really, Stanford? All this over a cup of coffee?" I'm just thinking of the reaction I would get if I walked up to an Oakland police officer and said "that chick just threw a cup of coffee on me. I want to file a complaint"

I don't really care too much about the legal issues, honestly. This shouldn't have been handled this way and I hope they are privately taking a look at how they handled this. I can't fathom why anyone thought this was worth the time and stress for the student, for the football player, or why the employee(s) at Stanford didn't have anything better to do with their time when the victim didn't want to pursue the issue. This has all the earmarks of a bureaucratic process that is moving for its own sake instead of for the purpose it was intended. The bottom line is that process and/or that email pushed this student over the edge. I mean she is found lying dead in her room with the email open on her computer. Which isn't to say that they are legally or morally culpable. Maybe she had mental issues that couldn't be predicted. Maybe this was the last of many things leading up to this. But Stanford has a duty to all of its students and parents pay a whole lot for that (though I'm sure she was on schollie, that isn't the point). From a biological perspective young people do not have fully formed executive functioning and they don't always see that they can get through stuff. (I read one story about a Mom who sent a perfectly happy teenager to bed and by morning he had killed himself. He had been conned into sending a d**k pick to someone posing as a girl and then blackmailed with threats that they would send it to his parents. He killed himself because he couldn't face his Mom.) You pump up that the Stanford degree is the greatest thing you are ever going to get in your life. You don't then, after a six month investigation, send an email on the last day to beat a deadline threatening to take that away. (plus all of the humiliation that goes with it) If you are going to threaten expulsion, you set a meeting, in person, you bring a counselor, and you walk it through the charges and the process with them. You make sure they understand the situation. You don't just drop an email with a "call this number if you are upset". Even if you have met with them before. The letter is the bad news that you need to address in person. Everything up to that point was what "may" happen.

I suspect that Stanford never had any intention of expelling her or withholding her degree. My guess is that at most they thought they would give her probation. I suspect it never occurred to them that she thought her degree was threatened even though that is what the letter directly said. I suspect that this was a stupid form letter that they use to cover absolutely every contingency when they have a hearing. And honestly, this is about the best possible light I can put on it for Stanford, because if they spent 6 months investigating an alleged coffee throwing and they were still actually thinking about having a hearing where expulsion was on the table...just Wow. Yeah, she should have been able to just roll with it and deal with the consequences that came instead of turning them into a huge monster in her imagination, but you have thousands of different people with different tolerances.

Stanford should know full well that many if not most kids that go to elite universities have put tons of pressure on themselves, often from even before high school and if they are faced with the thing they have worked for all of their life being taken from them, some of them are going to break. Any adolescent psychologist is going to tell you that.

---

You seem to be completely unaware as to how these investigations work and recent trends. Title IX policies and lawsuits now color everything (even though this may or may not have been a Title IX investigation, as opposed to regular discipline, Title IX is still implicated for the reasons explained below). Regarding the bolded, none of the things you object to or want to change happen in Title IX proceedings.

And that is part of what colors this. One of the main defenses male students raise (often successfully) is that the schools disciplinary decisions and processes are not evenly applied and are biased against men. I believe that impacted what happened here at least in part (in addition to the allegations against Katie Meyer likely being more egregious than the "accidental spill" currently reported). Furd was likely intent on making sure it followed the same processes in this case. Particularly so if the "victim" (i.e., the football player) was himself in a protected class.

As an example, in a Title IX case, they often proceed with a hearing even when the complainant does not want the student punished. Here's a case where the "victim" adamantly claimed she wasn't one, yet the case proceeded.

https://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2020/05/28/former-usc-kicker-matt-boermeester-wins-title-ix-case-in-appeals-court/

Furd knew of the alleged "spill" misconduct and probably felt obliged to proceed with at a minimum an investigation. I agree they likely would not have imposed real discipline. But they had to follow the process advising the student of that possibility, etc. Because they do that in every case as due process.

Final point - there is a larger issue at play here. If Meyer was motivated by anger that the football player had not been punished after an investigation, then can a school tolerate students engaging in vigilantism? If they don't at least discipline her in some form, what happens the next time?

---

Everything is pretty speculative at this point with the mostly one sided narrative and the somewhat confusing stanfurd response. But my initial read was a) a Title 9 type process was at play so the university had to move forward; b) this wasn't a spilling at all - she "attacked" a student in retaliation for the kiss so the university was motivated on the merits. It got complicated when the football player didn't want to pursue it.

In other news, I am really bothered by the loose language. Referring to the unwanted kiss as a rape is terribly unfair.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/family-sues-stanford-after-student-who-spilled-coffee-on-friend-s-alleged-rapist-is-found-dead/ar-AA14EFTB?cvid=49f6b1bd24e343bfae90311f546eb412

The alleged rapist was a football player.

---

I read another article where they said the football player was "only" accused of sexual assault (forcibly kissing the soccer player on the field against her will). If it was rape there has been A LOT of covering up going on (again) on the Farm.

This coming out could definitely be a factor in Shaw leaving.

Contrast with Cal where we publicly announced an investigation of Hufnagel and Martin for sexual harassment and assault (that allegedly happened 6 months earlier) 2 days before our first game of the NCAA Tournament as a #4 seed, our highest seed ever.

---

Notice the language of the complaint, which is being parroted in the media - the deceased "spilled" coffee on the alleged rapist. Seems pretty obvious she threw it on him, which is an assault type offense that would trigger the university's code of conduct inquiry and not an accident like "spill" implies.

---

He said/she said. How do you know that the coffee spill was unwanted? Perhaps the alleged victim of the spill was a masochist who enjoyed scalding. Or perhaps it was a genuine surprise spill. When accosted by the rapist, she had a freakout and spilled her coffee. Accidents happen, and the university shouldn't have started disciplinary action in something like this.

I'm mostly making light of an awful situation and I feel horribly for this girl's family and friends, but it's pretty obvious that too many people have taken similar approaches to sexual assault allegations, particularly on college campuses. Some people bend over backwards to protect assaulters and assume that their actions were reasonable but when it's something that is relatively obvious (but quite minor) like throwing coffee at someone, people don't feel the need to reflexively defend the accused.

---

I don't recall anyone characterizing an alleged rape or grope/kiss as an "accidental insertion" or "inadvertent use of lips/hands." We say "alleged rape" or "alleged sexual assault" and the press reports it that way.

"Spilling coffee" implies the alleged action was accidental or at least not intentional. If that was the allegation here - an accident - she would not be subject to discipline. Clearly the allegation was an intentional targeted assault or battery with coffee. So its bizarre to whitewash an alleged assault/battery by referring to it as "spilling." In virtually any other scenario, we'd see the report as " [XXXX] was in disciplinary proceedings for allegedly assaulting/battering another student with coffee." Why is that not the case here?

I'm surprised you think throwing coffee at someone is quite minor. I've personally seen a family member severely burned by accidentally spilled coffee. I doubt that happened here (maybe it was ice coffee??), but I'm pretty sure most schools would discipline students who intentionally attack other students by throwing things at them.

I feel bad for the family, but this seems like a sad attempt by grieving parents to find meaning in (and shift blame for) their daughters suicide by filing a weak lawsuit. Katie was an adult with agency and she sadly decided to take her own life.

---

She claimed it was accidental. I suspect it wasn't, but that is why it is characterized in the complaint as accidental.

The guy was not hurt. That and the circumstances imply that this was not scalding hot coffee straight from the barista.

The guy specifically said he didn't want action taken against her and he wanted the issue dropped. Some administrative weenie insisted on making a federal case out of it and charging it through an official process.

They threatened to expel her 3 months from graduation and hold up her transcript over at worst throwing a cup of coffee on someone they were ticked off at. That is massive overkill. Should never have even been in the equation. I have no idea if this was to protect a football player, if it was to cover up a cover up of a sexual assault charge, or if it just some Barney Fife trying to feel important and an impersonal one size fits all administrative process - I suspect it is the latter - but Stanford effed this up, IMO.

Take away the charged atmosphere that it is a football player and that there was an allegation of sexual assault that was investigated, you really think when you were at Cal a woman throwing a drink on a guy she thought was an ass would have lead to an administrative action and threats of expulsion? Especially when the guy didn't want anything done about it? There would be a lot of women who wouldn't have seen graduation. Discipline her? Sure. I can see that. Threatening an academic death penalty? Shouldn't have happened.

Whether they are legally or in any way responsible for her suicide is a different question, but threatening to take action that frankly most people in her situation would have viewed as ruining her life over a thrown cup of coffee where no one is hurt is not appropriate and I hope they have learned from this that maybe they need to be a little more careful how they communicate their disciplinary proceedings.

---

Uh, you think that is why the university was trying to have her testify? Spilling coffee is not a expulsion offense, even at Stanford. They had an active investigation of a football player for sexual allegations agains a minor and she refused to testify. You waive that right under Title 9 rules.

---

I could be wrong, but what I heard reported was that the investigation of the sexual allegations had concluded with no charges to be forthcoming. And I hadn't heard about the testimony angle, but in any case, the letter threatening expulsion was over the coffee. If you are saying that was an attempt to push her to testify, that is still effed up. And in any case, threatening expulsion over not being willing to testify would still not have been cool even if they were within their rights to do so. I really don't think forcing women to testify about sexual allegations is the way to go here. Especially when those actions often have ramifications for that person.

But again, the disciplinary action was over coffee. That is the relevant action. The sexual allegation has nothing to do with THAT case.

---

Apparently I'm wrong. It was about her attack on the player who was alleged to have kissed another soccer player. The parents indicated in previous articles which I can post that the conduct was related to the investigation where she was supposed to defend her fellow player. That changed in the complaint they filed. Stanford said that it was false and misleading that it was over throwing coffee, but I just read their latest statement (see below) and the misconduct at issue involved something she did the football player. There may be some other or additional conduct at play that "resulted in physical injury". Otherwise I don't understand the false and misleading comment made by Stanford. Discovery on this will no doubt be interesting.

I want to share this news story from Stanford University with you: https://news.stanford.edu/?p=45916

---

Obviously, both sides' lawyers are going to play to their strengths. Stanford's statement implies that she was withholding information by saying she was given the chance to provide more information at the end of the process and didn't, when after 6 months I'm not sure what else there is to say. "I was riding my bike and accidentally spilled coffee on him." "He says it was on purpose." "It wasn't". "Really? You happened to 'accidentally' spill coffee on the guy you think assaulted your teammate?" "Yes." After 6 months of investigation, I think they had all the information. She has no incentive not to clear it up if she had anything else to provide.

Obviously, her lawyers are dragging the sexual allegations into it to put Stanford in a bad light, make them look like they are protecting the football team, and care more about spilled coffee than a sexual assault. I get what they are doing, but honestly, I think it is a mistake. I think they are muddying the waters. I think their best case is "Really, Stanford? All this over a cup of coffee?" I'm just thinking of the reaction I would get if I walked up to an Oakland police officer and said "that chick just threw a cup of coffee on me. I want to file a complaint"

I don't really care too much about the legal issues, honestly. This shouldn't have been handled this way and I hope they are privately taking a look at how they handled this. I can't fathom why anyone thought this was worth the time and stress for the student, for the football player, or why the employee(s) at Stanford didn't have anything better to do with their time when the victim didn't want to pursue the issue. This has all the earmarks of a bureaucratic process that is moving for its own sake instead of for the purpose it was intended. The bottom line is that process and/or that email pushed this student over the edge. I mean she is found lying dead in her room with the email open on her computer. Which isn't to say that they are legally or morally culpable. Maybe she had mental issues that couldn't be predicted. Maybe this was the last of many things leading up to this. But Stanford has a duty to all of its students and parents pay a whole lot for that (though I'm sure she was on schollie, that isn't the point). From a biological perspective young people do not have fully formed executive functioning and they don't always see that they can get through stuff. (I read one story about a Mom who sent a perfectly happy teenager to bed and by morning he had killed himself. He had been conned into sending a d**k pick to someone posing as a girl and then blackmailed with threats that they would send it to his parents. He killed himself because he couldn't face his Mom.) You pump up that the Stanford degree is the greatest thing you are ever going to get in your life. You don't then, after a six month investigation, send an email on the last day to beat a deadline threatening to take that away. (plus all of the humiliation that goes with it) If you are going to threaten expulsion, you set a meeting, in person, you bring a counselor, and you walk it through the charges and the process with them. You make sure they understand the situation. You don't just drop an email with a "call this number if you are upset". Even if you have met with them before. The letter is the bad news that you need to address in person. Everything up to that point was what "may" happen.

I suspect that Stanford never had any intention of expelling her or withholding her degree. My guess is that at most they thought they would give her probation. I suspect it never occurred to them that she thought her degree was threatened even though that is what the letter directly said. I suspect that this was a stupid form letter that they use to cover absolutely every contingency when they have a hearing. And honestly, this is about the best possible light I can put on it for Stanford, because if they spent 6 months investigating an alleged coffee throwing and they were still actually thinking about having a hearing where expulsion was on the table...just Wow. Yeah, she should have been able to just roll with it and deal with the consequences that came instead of turning them into a huge monster in her imagination, but you have thousands of different people with different tolerances.

Stanford should know full well that many if not most kids that go to elite universities have put tons of pressure on themselves, often from even before high school and if they are faced with the thing they have worked for all of their life being taken from them, some of them are going to break. Any adolescent psychologist is going to tell you that.

---

Welcome to the wonderful world of Title 9 because so much of what was said in the post about "forgetting about the legal issues" is lost once a sexual harassment protocols are triggered.

Schools are not given any discretion regarding any notice of an allegation of sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual conduct (an unwelcome kiss is not rape under Title 9). Once the investigation is triggered it must proceed. It doesn't matter of the alleged victim or accused don' want it to proceed. The investigation probably found the kiss was not unwelcome hence the finding that Title 9 criteria was not meet for the prosecution step to proceed. This public policy is because of the perceived failure or unwillingness to bring prosecutions. Moreover, the rules of title 9 (and most private employer harassment rules) require cooperation, including mandating testimony before investigators.

Title 9 also mandates that there be absolutely no determination of retaliation of against those filling complaint, unfair treatment or discrimination due to a filed complaint or report of conduct, including retaliation against those accused of violating title 9, and once again, that the parties to the alleged harmful actions did not pursue a claim of retaliation is irrelevant. The pubic policy I assume is against the history of non-prosecution and the specter that retaliation ruins the independence of the investigation, findings and assessment of sanctions.

The school is stuck once the school hears about retaliation, Title 9 protocols kick in and there is no stopping that train. It is irrelevant that the parties don't want the process to start. The school losses all discretion to work out friendly deals or whatever everyone else thinks should happen, again because the history of side deals has been seen as favoring the actors and not the injured.

Thus, while a lot of what it said in the post makes common sense, it is not reflected in the process the schools must follow. For example, the regulations determine largely what must be said in disclosures to parties. The only school I know that told the Biden administration to sue it for refusing to follow the reimposition of the Title 9 guidelines was Harvard Law School, and I guess given the composition of SCOTUS, the Biden administration didn't take HLS up on their invitation.

All this over what perceived as an unwanted kiss.

WalterSobchak said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

In CA, you do not need to immediately serve a lawsuit. In fact, you could dismiss the case without ever serving it in theory).

---

Are there jurisdictions that require service before the complaint can be filed? Who issues the summons? Or do they not use summons + complaint like we do here?

---

There is no complaint to be served until it is filled with a court of competent jurisdiction. There are some law and motion stuff that are exceptions like an unlawful detainer action in some jurisdctions, but not for a civil damages case like this instant situation. By the way, in California, a case like this the defendant would have to served within 3 years from filing with the court. CCP 583.210(a). The 60 day period mentioned is for filling proof of service with the court CCP 583.210(b).

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/family-sues-stanford-after-student-who-spilled-coffee-on-friend-s-alleged-rapist-is-found-dead/ar-AA14EFTB?cvid=49f6b1bd24e343bfae90311f546eb412

The alleged rapist was a football player.

---

I read another article where they said the football player was "only" accused of sexual assault (forcibly kissing the soccer player on the field against her will). If it was rape there has been A LOT of covering up going on (again) on the Farm.

This coming out could definitely be a factor in Shaw leaving.

Contrast with Cal where we publicly announced an investigation of Hufnagel and Martin for sexual harassment and assault (that allegedly happened 6 months earlier) 2 days before our first game of the NCAA Tournament as a #4 seed, our highest seed ever.

---

Notice the language of the complaint, which is being parroted in the media - the deceased "spilled" coffee on the alleged rapist. Seems pretty obvious she threw it on him, which is an assault type offense that would trigger the university's code of conduct inquiry and not an accident like "spill" implies.

---

He said/she said. How do you know that the coffee spill was unwanted? Perhaps the alleged victim of the spill was a masochist who enjoyed scalding. Or perhaps it was a genuine surprise spill. When accosted by the rapist, she had a freakout and spilled her coffee. Accidents happen, and the university shouldn't have started disciplinary action in something like this.

I'm mostly making light of an awful situation and I feel horribly for this girl's family and friends, but it's pretty obvious that too many people have taken similar approaches to sexual assault allegations, particularly on college campuses. Some people bend over backwards to protect assaulters and assume that their actions were reasonable but when it's something that is relatively obvious (but quite minor) like throwing coffee at someone, people don't feel the need to reflexively defend the accused.

---

I don't recall anyone characterizing an alleged rape or grope/kiss as an "accidental insertion" or "inadvertent use of lips/hands." We say "alleged rape" or "alleged sexual assault" and the press reports it that way.

"Spilling coffee" implies the alleged action was accidental or at least not intentional. If that was the allegation here - an accident - she would not be subject to discipline. Clearly the allegation was an intentional targeted assault or battery with coffee. So its bizarre to whitewash an alleged assault/battery by referring to it as "spilling." In virtually any other scenario, we'd see the report as " [XXXX] was in disciplinary proceedings for allegedly assaulting/battering another student with coffee." Why is that not the case here?

I'm surprised you think throwing coffee at someone is quite minor. I've personally seen a family member severely burned by accidentally spilled coffee. I doubt that happened here (maybe it was ice coffee??), but I'm pretty sure most schools would discipline students who intentionally attack other students by throwing things at them.

I feel bad for the family, but this seems like a sad attempt by grieving parents to find meaning in (and shift blame for) their daughters suicide by filing a weak lawsuit. Katie was an adult with agency and she sadly decided to take her own life.

---

She claimed it was accidental. I suspect it wasn't, but that is why it is characterized in the complaint as accidental.

The guy was not hurt. That and the circumstances imply that this was not scalding hot coffee straight from the barista.

The guy specifically said he didn't want action taken against her and he wanted the issue dropped. Some administrative weenie insisted on making a federal case out of it and charging it through an official process.

They threatened to expel her 3 months from graduation and hold up her transcript over at worst throwing a cup of coffee on someone they were ticked off at. That is massive overkill. Should never have even been in the equation. I have no idea if this was to protect a football player, if it was to cover up a cover up of a sexual assault charge, or if it just some Barney Fife trying to feel important and an impersonal one size fits all administrative process - I suspect it is the latter - but Stanford effed this up, IMO.

Take away the charged atmosphere that it is a football player and that there was an allegation of sexual assault that was investigated, you really think when you were at Cal a woman throwing a drink on a guy she thought was an ass would have lead to an administrative action and threats of expulsion? Especially when the guy didn't want anything done about it? There would be a lot of women who wouldn't have seen graduation. Discipline her? Sure. I can see that. Threatening an academic death penalty? Shouldn't have happened.

Whether they are legally or in any way responsible for her suicide is a different question, but threatening to take action that frankly most people in her situation would have viewed as ruining her life over a thrown cup of coffee where no one is hurt is not appropriate and I hope they have learned from this that maybe they need to be a little more careful how they communicate their disciplinary proceedings.

---

Uh, you think that is why the university was trying to have her testify? Spilling coffee is not a expulsion offense, even at Stanford. They had an active investigation of a football player for sexual allegations agains a minor and she refused to testify. You waive that right under Title 9 rules.

---

I could be wrong, but what I heard reported was that the investigation of the sexual allegations had concluded with no charges to be forthcoming. And I hadn't heard about the testimony angle, but in any case, the letter threatening expulsion was over the coffee. If you are saying that was an attempt to push her to testify, that is still effed up. And in any case, threatening expulsion over not being willing to testify would still not have been cool even if they were within their rights to do so. I really don't think forcing women to testify about sexual allegations is the way to go here. Especially when those actions often have ramifications for that person.

But again, the disciplinary action was over coffee. That is the relevant action. The sexual allegation has nothing to do with THAT case.

---

Apparently I'm wrong. It was about her attack on the player who was alleged to have kissed another soccer player. The parents indicated in previous articles which I can post that the conduct was related to the investigation where she was supposed to defend her fellow player. That changed in the complaint they filed. Stanford said that it was false and misleading that it was over throwing coffee, but I just read their latest statement (see below) and the misconduct at issue involved something she did the football player. There may be some other or additional conduct at play that "resulted in physical injury". Otherwise I don't understand the false and misleading comment made by Stanford. Discovery on this will no doubt be interesting.

I want to share this news story from Stanford University with you: https://news.stanford.edu/?p=45916

---

Obviously, both sides' lawyers are going to play to their strengths. Stanford's statement implies that she was withholding information by saying she was given the chance to provide more information at the end of the process and didn't, when after 6 months I'm not sure what else there is to say. "I was riding my bike and accidentally spilled coffee on him." "He says it was on purpose." "It wasn't". "Really? You happened to 'accidentally' spill coffee on the guy you think assaulted your teammate?" "Yes." After 6 months of investigation, I think they had all the information. She has no incentive not to clear it up if she had anything else to provide.

Obviously, her lawyers are dragging the sexual allegations into it to put Stanford in a bad light, make them look like they are protecting the football team, and care more about spilled coffee than a sexual assault. I get what they are doing, but honestly, I think it is a mistake. I think they are muddying the waters. I think their best case is "Really, Stanford? All this over a cup of coffee?" I'm just thinking of the reaction I would get if I walked up to an Oakland police officer and said "that chick just threw a cup of coffee on me. I want to file a complaint"

I don't really care too much about the legal issues, honestly. This shouldn't have been handled this way and I hope they are privately taking a look at how they handled this. I can't fathom why anyone thought this was worth the time and stress for the student, for the football player, or why the employee(s) at Stanford didn't have anything better to do with their time when the victim didn't want to pursue the issue. This has all the earmarks of a bureaucratic process that is moving for its own sake instead of for the purpose it was intended. The bottom line is that process and/or that email pushed this student over the edge. I mean she is found lying dead in her room with the email open on her computer. Which isn't to say that they are legally or morally culpable. Maybe she had mental issues that couldn't be predicted. Maybe this was the last of many things leading up to this. But Stanford has a duty to all of its students and parents pay a whole lot for that (though I'm sure she was on schollie, that isn't the point). From a biological perspective young people do not have fully formed executive functioning and they don't always see that they can get through stuff. (I read one story about a Mom who sent a perfectly happy teenager to bed and by morning he had killed himself. He had been conned into sending a d**k pick to someone posing as a girl and then blackmailed with threats that they would send it to his parents. He killed himself because he couldn't face his Mom.) You pump up that the Stanford degree is the greatest thing you are ever going to get in your life. You don't then, after a six month investigation, send an email on the last day to beat a deadline threatening to take that away. (plus all of the humiliation that goes with it) If you are going to threaten expulsion, you set a meeting, in person, you bring a counselor, and you walk it through the charges and the process with them. You make sure they understand the situation. You don't just drop an email with a "call this number if you are upset". Even if you have met with them before. The letter is the bad news that you need to address in person. Everything up to that point was what "may" happen.

I suspect that Stanford never had any intention of expelling her or withholding her degree. My guess is that at most they thought they would give her probation. I suspect it never occurred to them that she thought her degree was threatened even though that is what the letter directly said. I suspect that this was a stupid form letter that they use to cover absolutely every contingency when they have a hearing. And honestly, this is about the best possible light I can put on it for Stanford, because if they spent 6 months investigating an alleged coffee throwing and they were still actually thinking about having a hearing where expulsion was on the table...just Wow. Yeah, she should have been able to just roll with it and deal with the consequences that came instead of turning them into a huge monster in her imagination, but you have thousands of different people with different tolerances.

Stanford should know full well that many if not most kids that go to elite universities have put tons of pressure on themselves, often from even before high school and if they are faced with the thing they have worked for all of their life being taken from them, some of them are going to break. Any adolescent psychologist is going to tell you that.

---

Welcome to the wonderful world of Title 9 because so much of what was said in the post about "forgetting about the legal issues" is lost once a sexual harassment protocols are triggered.

Schools are not given any discretion regarding sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual conduct (an unwelcome kiss is not rape under Title 9). Once the investigation starts it out proceed. The investigation probably found the kiss was not unwelcome hence the finding that Title 9 criteria was not meet for the prosecution step. This is because of the perceived failure or unwillingness of prosecutor to bring prosecutions. Moreover, the rules of title 9 (and most private employer harassment rules) require cooperation including testimony before investigators.

It also mandates that there be absolutely no determination of retaliation of against those filling complaint, unfair treatment or discrimination due to a filed complain, including retaliation against those accused of violating title 9, and once again, that the parties to the alleged harmful actions did not pursue a claim of retaliation is irrelevant. The pubic policy I assume is against the history of non-prosecution and the specter that retaliation ruins the independence of the investigation, findings and assessment of sanctions.

The school is stuck once the school hears about retaliation, Title 9 protocols kick in and there is no stopping that train. It is irrelevant that the parties don't want the process to start. The school losses all discretion to work out friendly deals or whatever everyone else thinks should happen, again because the history of side deals has been seen as favoring the actors and not the injured.

Thus, while a lot of what it said in the post makes common sense, it is not reflected in the process the schools must follow. For example, the regulations determine largely what must be said in disclosures to parties. The only school I know that told the Biden administration to sue it for refusing to follow the reimposition of the Title 9 guidelines was Harvard Law School, and I guess given the composition of SCTUS, the Biden administration didn't take HLS up on their invitation.

All this over a maybe unwanted kiss.

---

If this was all mandated by the Title 9 process, why was the unwanted kiss allegation referred to Stanford's Title 9 department and this was not? That alone was clearly not following Title 9 protocols. Maybe you are right that this should have been treated as a retaliation against the accused in a Title 9 case and should have been dragged into that case and referred to their Title 9 department, but by Stanford's own statement, they did not do that. If this was a Title 9 case, only the Title 9 department should have been handling it. I can only think that because it was handled through their normal student disciplinary process, Stanford did not agree with your position. Which brings me back to this was a ridiculous overkill on a coffee spill/throw case.

And in any case, there is nothing in the requirements that stops them from having an in person meeting to go through the charges and have a counselor available to talk to the student and make sure they are okay. When I say I don't care about the legal issues on this one I'm not trying to say I don't care about the law, Stanford should pay. I have said I don't know if they are legally responsible or even morally responsible. I'm saying that whether it is their fault or not, Stanford should be looking at their process and consider whether they can improve this for their students.

Add -

From your link:

Quote:

---

Similarly, the allegation that Stanford failed to address a claim that a football player kissed one of Katie's soccer teammates without her permission is inaccurate. In fact, it is the university that initially reported this claim to Stanford's Title IX office and the police. However, the Title IX office did not pursue the matter since the criteria for moving forward with an investigation were not met.

---

and

Quote:

---

Stanford's Office of Community Standards (OCS) received a complaint regarding alleged behavior by Katie that resulted in physical injury, and as is the practice of the office, it launched a review of that allegation. After extensive factfinding and the opportunity for both sides to provide information, it was found that the high threshold was met for the matter to proceed to a hearing. However, it is important to emphasize that we are committed to supporting students through the student judicial process under OCS, and we did so in this case. In particular, the university offered Katie an advisor to work with her throughout the process and told her she could have a support person of her choosing with her in any meeting or conversation with OCS

---

Her case was based on a complain received by OCS and it stayed with OCS. Stanford says nothing about Title 9 in their statement with respect to the coffee case. It was not referred to the Title 9 office. They made no claim that it was a retaliation case. They went out of their way to separate the two cases in their statement like they had nothing to do with each other. Maybe it is a Title 9 case to you, and you may absolutely be correct that it should have been treated as one, but it clearly wasn't a Title 9 case to Stanford and they clearly didn't treat it as one.

The process at issue is not their Title 9 process. It is their OCS process. They followed their OCS process. Which means, this will be the process that is followed for other OCS cases. So I am back to is this really an appropriate process for managing student disputes?

Quite honestly, this whole thing is bullshyte on everyone's part. He shouldn't have kissed the other girl. Unless he was a repeat offender (or it was worse than portrayed), they should have slapped him, told him off, whatever, and not gotten the admin involved. And if her teammate throws a coffee on him he should have taken it like a man as the price for being an asshat to the other girl. The whole need to have every wrong adjudicated on all sides is ridiculous. Everyone would have been better off if they just settled things and moved on.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/family-sues-stanford-after-student-who-spilled-coffee-on-friend-s-alleged-rapist-is-found-dead/ar-AA14EFTB?cvid=49f6b1bd24e343bfae90311f546eb412

The alleged rapist was a football player.

---

I read another article where they said the football player was "only" accused of sexual assault (forcibly kissing the soccer player on the field against her will). If it was rape there has been A LOT of covering up going on (again) on the Farm.

This coming out could definitely be a factor in Shaw leaving.

Contrast with Cal where we publicly announced an investigation of Hufnagel and Martin for sexual harassment and assault (that allegedly happened 6 months earlier) 2 days before our first game of the NCAA Tournament as a #4 seed, our highest seed ever.

---

Notice the language of the complaint, which is being parroted in the media - the deceased "spilled" coffee on the alleged rapist. Seems pretty obvious she threw it on him, which is an assault type offense that would trigger the university's code of conduct inquiry and not an accident like "spill" implies.

---

He said/she said. How do you know that the coffee spill was unwanted? Perhaps the alleged victim of the spill was a masochist who enjoyed scalding. Or perhaps it was a genuine surprise spill. When accosted by the rapist, she had a freakout and spilled her coffee. Accidents happen, and the university shouldn't have started disciplinary action in something like this.

I'm mostly making light of an awful situation and I feel horribly for this girl's family and friends, but it's pretty obvious that too many people have taken similar approaches to sexual assault allegations, particularly on college campuses. Some people bend over backwards to protect assaulters and assume that their actions were reasonable but when it's something that is relatively obvious (but quite minor) like throwing coffee at someone, people don't feel the need to reflexively defend the accused.

---

I don't recall anyone characterizing an alleged rape or grope/kiss as an "accidental insertion" or "inadvertent use of lips/hands." We say "alleged rape" or "alleged sexual assault" and the press reports it that way.

"Spilling coffee" implies the alleged action was accidental or at least not intentional. If that was the allegation here - an accident - she would not be subject to discipline. Clearly the allegation was an intentional targeted assault or battery with coffee. So its bizarre to whitewash an alleged assault/battery by referring to it as "spilling." In virtually any other scenario, we'd see the report as " [XXXX] was in disciplinary proceedings for allegedly assaulting/battering another student with coffee." Why is that not the case here?

I'm surprised you think throwing coffee at someone is quite minor. I've personally seen a family member severely burned by accidentally spilled coffee. I doubt that happened here (maybe it was ice coffee??), but I'm pretty sure most schools would discipline students who intentionally attack other students by throwing things at them.

I feel bad for the family, but this seems like a sad attempt by grieving parents to find meaning in (and shift blame for) their daughters suicide by filing a weak lawsuit. Katie was an adult with agency and she sadly decided to take her own life.

---

She claimed it was accidental. I suspect it wasn't, but that is why it is characterized in the complaint as accidental.

The guy was not hurt. That and the circumstances imply that this was not scalding hot coffee straight from the barista.

The guy specifically said he didn't want action taken against her and he wanted the issue dropped. Some administrative weenie insisted on making a federal case out of it and charging it through an official process.

They threatened to expel her 3 months from graduation and hold up her transcript over at worst throwing a cup of coffee on someone they were ticked off at. That is massive overkill. Should never have even been in the equation. I have no idea if this was to protect a football player, if it was to cover up a cover up of a sexual assault charge, or if it just some Barney Fife trying to feel important and an impersonal one size fits all administrative process - I suspect it is the latter - but Stanford effed this up, IMO.

Take away the charged atmosphere that it is a football player and that there was an allegation of sexual assault that was investigated, you really think when you were at Cal a woman throwing a drink on a guy she thought was an ass would have lead to an administrative action and threats of expulsion? Especially when the guy didn't want anything done about it? There would be a lot of women who wouldn't have seen graduation. Discipline her? Sure. I can see that. Threatening an academic death penalty? Shouldn't have happened.

Whether they are legally or in any way responsible for her suicide is a different question, but threatening to take action that frankly most people in her situation would have viewed as ruining her life over a thrown cup of coffee where no one is hurt is not appropriate and I hope they have learned from this that maybe they need to be a little more careful how they communicate their disciplinary proceedings.

---

Uh, you think that is why the university was trying to have her testify? Spilling coffee is not a expulsion offense, even at Stanford. They had an active investigation of a football player for sexual allegations agains a minor and she refused to testify. You waive that right under Title 9 rules.

---

I could be wrong, but what I heard reported was that the investigation of the sexual allegations had concluded with no charges to be forthcoming. And I hadn't heard about the testimony angle, but in any case, the letter threatening expulsion was over the coffee. If you are saying that was an attempt to push her to testify, that is still effed up. And in any case, threatening expulsion over not being willing to testify would still not have been cool even if they were within their rights to do so. I really don't think forcing women to testify about sexual allegations is the way to go here. Especially when those actions often have ramifications for that person.

But again, the disciplinary action was over coffee. That is the relevant action. The sexual allegation has nothing to do with THAT case.

---

Apparently I'm wrong. It was about her attack on the player who was alleged to have kissed another soccer player. The parents indicated in previous articles which I can post that the conduct was related to the investigation where she was supposed to defend her fellow player. That changed in the complaint they filed. Stanford said that it was false and misleading that it was over throwing coffee, but I just read their latest statement (see below) and the misconduct at issue involved something she did the football player. There may be some other or additional conduct at play that "resulted in physical injury". Otherwise I don't understand the false and misleading comment made by Stanford. Discovery on this will no doubt be interesting.

I want to share this news story from Stanford University with you: https://news.stanford.edu/?p=45916

---

Obviously, both sides' lawyers are going to play to their strengths. Stanford's statement implies that she was withholding information by saying she was given the chance to provide more information at the end of the process and didn't, when after 6 months I'm not sure what else there is to say. "I was riding my bike and accidentally spilled coffee on him." "He says it was on purpose." "It wasn't". "Really? You happened to 'accidentally' spill coffee on the guy you think assaulted your teammate?" "Yes." After 6 months of investigation, I think they had all the information. She has no incentive not to clear it up if she had anything else to provide.

Obviously, her lawyers are dragging the sexual allegations into it to put Stanford in a bad light, make them look like they are protecting the football team, and care more about spilled coffee than a sexual assault. I get what they are doing, but honestly, I think it is a mistake. I think they are muddying the waters. I think their best case is "Really, Stanford? All this over a cup of coffee?" I'm just thinking of the reaction I would get if I walked up to an Oakland police officer and said "that chick just threw a cup of coffee on me. I want to file a complaint"

I don't really care too much about the legal issues, honestly. This shouldn't have been handled this way and I hope they are privately taking a look at how they handled this. I can't fathom why anyone thought this was worth the time and stress for the student, for the football player, or why the employee(s) at Stanford didn't have anything better to do with their time when the victim didn't want to pursue the issue. This has all the earmarks of a bureaucratic process that is moving for its own sake instead of for the purpose it was intended. The bottom line is that process and/or that email pushed this student over the edge. I mean she is found lying dead in her room with the email open on her computer. Which isn't to say that they are legally or morally culpable. Maybe she had mental issues that couldn't be predicted. Maybe this was the last of many things leading up to this. But Stanford has a duty to all of its students and parents pay a whole lot for that (though I'm sure she was on schollie, that isn't the point). From a biological perspective young people do not have fully formed executive functioning and they don't always see that they can get through stuff. (I read one story about a Mom who sent a perfectly happy teenager to bed and by morning he had killed himself. He had been conned into sending a d**k pick to someone posing as a girl and then blackmailed with threats that they would send it to his parents. He killed himself because he couldn't face his Mom.) You pump up that the Stanford degree is the greatest thing you are ever going to get in your life. You don't then, after a six month investigation, send an email on the last day to beat a deadline threatening to take that away. (plus all of the humiliation that goes with it) If you are going to threaten expulsion, you set a meeting, in person, you bring a counselor, and you walk it through the charges and the process with them. You make sure they understand the situation. You don't just drop an email with a "call this number if you are upset". Even if you have met with them before. The letter is the bad news that you need to address in person. Everything up to that point was what "may" happen.

I suspect that Stanford never had any intention of expelling her or withholding her degree. My guess is that at most they thought they would give her probation. I suspect it never occurred to them that she thought her degree was threatened even though that is what the letter directly said. I suspect that this was a stupid form letter that they use to cover absolutely every contingency when they have a hearing. And honestly, this is about the best possible light I can put on it for Stanford, because if they spent 6 months investigating an alleged coffee throwing and they were still actually thinking about having a hearing where expulsion was on the table...just Wow. Yeah, she should have been able to just roll with it and deal with the consequences that came instead of turning them into a huge monster in her imagination, but you have thousands of different people with different tolerances.

Stanford should know full well that many if not most kids that go to elite universities have put tons of pressure on themselves, often from even before high school and if they are faced with the thing they have worked for all of their life being taken from them, some of them are going to break. Any adolescent psychologist is going to tell you that.

---

Welcome to the wonderful world of Title 9 because so much of what was said in the post about "forgetting about the legal issues" is lost once a sexual harassment protocols are triggered.

Schools are not given any discretion regarding sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual conduct (an unwelcome kiss is not rape under Title 9). Once the investigation starts it out proceed. The investigation probably found the kiss was not unwelcome hence the finding that Title 9 criteria was not meet for the prosecution step. This is because of the perceived failure or unwillingness of prosecutor to bring prosecutions. Moreover, the rules of title 9 (and most private employer harassment rules) require cooperation including testimony before investigators.

It also mandates that there be absolutely no determination of retaliation of against those filling complaint, unfair treatment or discrimination due to a filed complain, including retaliation against those accused of violating title 9, and once again, that the parties to the alleged harmful actions did not pursue a claim of retaliation is irrelevant. The pubic policy I assume is against the history of non-prosecution and the specter that retaliation ruins the independence of the investigation, findings and assessment of sanctions.

The school is stuck once the school hears about retaliation, Title 9 protocols kick in and there is no stopping that train. It is irrelevant that the parties don't want the process to start. The school losses all discretion to work out friendly deals or whatever everyone else thinks should happen, again because the history of side deals has been seen as favoring the actors and not the injured.

Thus, while a lot of what it said in the post makes common sense, it is not reflected in the process the schools must follow. For example, the regulations determine largely what must be said in disclosures to parties. The only school I know that told the Biden administration to sue it for refusing to follow the reimposition of the Title 9 guidelines was Harvard Law School, and I guess given the composition of SCTUS, the Biden administration didn't take HLS up on their invitation.

All this over a maybe unwanted kiss.

---

If this was all mandated by the Title 9 process, why was the unwanted kiss allegation referred to Stanford's Title 9 department and this was not? That alone was clearly not following Title 9 protocols. Maybe you are right that this should have been treated as a retaliation against the accused in a Title 9 case and should have been dragged into that case and referred to their Title 9 department, but by Stanford's own statement, they did not do that. If this was a Title 9 case, only the Title 9 department should have been handling it. I can only think that because it was handled through their normal student disciplinary process, Stanford did not agree with your position. Which brings me back to this was a ridiculous overkill on a coffee spill/throw case.

And in any case, there is nothing in the requirements that stops them from having an in person meeting to go through the charges and have a counselor available to talk to the student and make sure they are okay. When I say I don't care about the legal issues on this one I'm not trying to say I don't care about the law, Stanford should pay. I have said I don't know if they are legally responsible or even morally responsible. I'm saying that whether it is their fault or not, Stanford should be looking at their process and consider whether they can improve this for their students.

Add -

From your link:

Quote:

---

Similarly, the allegation that Stanford failed to address a claim that a football player kissed one of Katie's soccer teammates without her permission is inaccurate. In fact, it is the university that initially reported this claim to Stanford's Title IX office and the police. However, the Title IX office did not pursue the matter since the criteria for moving forward with an investigation were not met.

---

and

Quote:

---

Stanford's Office of Community Standards (OCS) received a complaint regarding alleged behavior by Katie that resulted in physical injury, and as is the practice of the office, it launched a review of that allegation. After extensive factfinding and the opportunity for both sides to provide information, it was found that the high threshold was met for the matter to proceed to a hearing. However, it is important to emphasize that we are committed to supporting students through the student judicial process under OCS, and we did so in this case. In particular, the university offered Katie an advisor to work with her throughout the process and told her she could have a support person of her choosing with her in any meeting or conversation with OCS

---

Her case was based on a complain received by OCS and it stayed with OCS. Stanford says nothing about Title 9 in their statement with respect to the coffee case. It was not referred to the Title 9 office. They made no claim that it was a retaliation case. They went out of their way to separate the two cases in their statement like they had nothing to do with each other. Maybe it is a Title 9 case to you, and you may absolutely be correct that it should have been treated as one, but it clearly wasn't a Title 9 case to Stanford and they clearly didn't treat it as one.

The process at issue is not their Title 9 process. It is their OCS process. They followed their OCS process. Which means, this will be the process that is followed for other OCS cases. So I am back to is this really an appropriate process for managing student disputes?

Quite honestly, this whole thing is bullshyte on everyone's part. He shouldn't have kissed the other girl. Unless he was a repeat offender (or it was worse than portrayed), they should have slapped him, told him off, whatever, and not gotten the admin involved. And if her teammate throws a coffee on him he should have taken it like a man as the price for being an asshat to the other girl. The whole need to have every wrong adjudicated on all sides is ridiculous. Everyone would have been better off if they just settled things and moved on.

---

I can see how this is confusing to you, but OCS: after reeding the media release, but you are wrong factually:

But if you go to the Stanford OCS website you will see it is also the Stanford Title IX Office which includes "the Stanford Student Title IX Process and offers resources for students affected by interpersonal violence and gender-based discrimination." The Mayer matter was being handled by the OCS Tilte IX office.

Guys thanks for the responses but I'm not asking about CA law. I'm trying to wrap my head around how it could be done any other way as BG insinuated initially. Maybe that was just a throwaway disclaimer on his part to limit his comment to where we practice but it got me curious if he was making a specific reference to other jx where service is required before the filing.

Also I understand that the way we do it here in CA provides openings for some gamesmanship, but as we all know SOP can be difficult and time consuming so it's necessary to have a reasonable time period allowed for service. And since the court is required to issue the summons, which is the method for attaching the state's personal jx upon the defendant, that seems to dictate the order of filing before service. IMO allowing attorneys to issue summons (like we can issue subpoenas after the court has jx) would likely be even more problematic and quite possibly illegal.

I guess maybe I should also add that I am also aware of the common professional courtesy of attaching a copy of the prospective complaint with your final demand letter, particularly where you know the d is represented by counsel.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Guys thanks for the responses but I'm not asking about CA law. I'm trying to wrap my head around how it could be done any other way as BG insinuated initially. Maybe that was just a throwaway disclaimer on his part to limit his comment to where we practice but it got me curious if he was making a specific reference to other jx where service is required before the filing.

Also I understand that the way we do it here in CA provides openings for some gamesmanship, but as we all know SOP can be difficult and time consuming so it's necessary to have a reasonable time period allowed for service. And since the court is required to issue the summons, which is the method for attaching the state's personal jx upon the defendant, that seems to dictate the order of filing before service. IMO allowing attorneys to issue summons (like we can issue subpoenas after the court has jx) would likely be even more problematic and quite possibly illegal.

I guess maybe I should also add that I am also aware of the common professional courtesy of attaching a copy of the prospective complaint with your final demand letter, particularly where you know the d is represented by counsel.

---

Absolutely on the last paragraph, though I have never been involved in case that is tried first in the media.

That said, I tended to represent public agencies, which have a whole separate process of filing claims in California. But I did represent developers who found themselves embroiled in litigation years after a complaint was filed, unaware they had been even named in an action. Since these matters were turned over to insurance companies, I can't really tell you about the procedural posture. I would defer to the litigators.

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/family-sues-stanford-after-student-who-spilled-coffee-on-friend-s-alleged-rapist-is-found-dead/ar-AA14EFTB?cvid=49f6b1bd24e343bfae90311f546eb412

The alleged rapist was a football player.

---

I read another article where they said the football player was "only" accused of sexual assault (forcibly kissing the soccer player on the field against her will). If it was rape there has been A LOT of covering up going on (again) on the Farm.

This coming out could definitely be a factor in Shaw leaving.

Contrast with Cal where we publicly announced an investigation of Hufnagel and Martin for sexual harassment and assault (that allegedly happened 6 months earlier) 2 days before our first game of the NCAA Tournament as a #4 seed, our highest seed ever.

---

Notice the language of the complaint, which is being parroted in the media - the deceased "spilled" coffee on the alleged rapist. Seems pretty obvious she threw it on him, which is an assault type offense that would trigger the university's code of conduct inquiry and not an accident like "spill" implies.

---

He said/she said. How do you know that the coffee spill was unwanted? Perhaps the alleged victim of the spill was a masochist who enjoyed scalding. Or perhaps it was a genuine surprise spill. When accosted by the rapist, she had a freakout and spilled her coffee. Accidents happen, and the university shouldn't have started disciplinary action in something like this.

I'm mostly making light of an awful situation and I feel horribly for this girl's family and friends, but it's pretty obvious that too many people have taken similar approaches to sexual assault allegations, particularly on college campuses. Some people bend over backwards to protect assaulters and assume that their actions were reasonable but when it's something that is relatively obvious (but quite minor) like throwing coffee at someone, people don't feel the need to reflexively defend the accused.

---

I don't recall anyone characterizing an alleged rape or grope/kiss as an "accidental insertion" or "inadvertent use of lips/hands." We say "alleged rape" or "alleged sexual assault" and the press reports it that way.

"Spilling coffee" implies the alleged action was accidental or at least not intentional. If that was the allegation here - an accident - she would not be subject to discipline. Clearly the allegation was an intentional targeted assault or battery with coffee. So its bizarre to whitewash an alleged assault/battery by referring to it as "spilling." In virtually any other scenario, we'd see the report as " [XXXX] was in disciplinary proceedings for allegedly assaulting/battering another student with coffee." Why is that not the case here?

I'm surprised you think throwing coffee at someone is quite minor. I've personally seen a family member severely burned by accidentally spilled coffee. I doubt that happened here (maybe it was ice coffee??), but I'm pretty sure most schools would discipline students who intentionally attack other students by throwing things at them.

I feel bad for the family, but this seems like a sad attempt by grieving parents to find meaning in (and shift blame for) their daughters suicide by filing a weak lawsuit. Katie was an adult with agency and she sadly decided to take her own life.

---

She claimed it was accidental. I suspect it wasn't, but that is why it is characterized in the complaint as accidental.

The guy was not hurt. That and the circumstances imply that this was not scalding hot coffee straight from the barista.

The guy specifically said he didn't want action taken against her and he wanted the issue dropped. Some administrative weenie insisted on making a federal case out of it and charging it through an official process.

They threatened to expel her 3 months from graduation and hold up her transcript over at worst throwing a cup of coffee on someone they were ticked off at. That is massive overkill. Should never have even been in the equation. I have no idea if this was to protect a football player, if it was to cover up a cover up of a sexual assault charge, or if it just some Barney Fife trying to feel important and an impersonal one size fits all administrative process - I suspect it is the latter - but Stanford effed this up, IMO.

Take away the charged atmosphere that it is a football player and that there was an allegation of sexual assault that was investigated, you really think when you were at Cal a woman throwing a drink on a guy she thought was an ass would have lead to an administrative action and threats of expulsion? Especially when the guy didn't want anything done about it? There would be a lot of women who wouldn't have seen graduation. Discipline her? Sure. I can see that. Threatening an academic death penalty? Shouldn't have happened.

Whether they are legally or in any way responsible for her suicide is a different question, but threatening to take action that frankly most people in her situation would have viewed as ruining her life over a thrown cup of coffee where no one is hurt is not appropriate and I hope they have learned from this that maybe they need to be a little more careful how they communicate their disciplinary proceedings.

---

Uh, you think that is why the university was trying to have her testify? Spilling coffee is not a expulsion offense, even at Stanford. They had an active investigation of a football player for sexual allegations agains a minor and she refused to testify. You waive that right under Title 9 rules.

---

I could be wrong, but what I heard reported was that the investigation of the sexual allegations had concluded with no charges to be forthcoming. And I hadn't heard about the testimony angle, but in any case, the letter threatening expulsion was over the coffee. If you are saying that was an attempt to push her to testify, that is still effed up. And in any case, threatening expulsion over not being willing to testify would still not have been cool even if they were within their rights to do so. I really don't think forcing women to testify about sexual allegations is the way to go here. Especially when those actions often have ramifications for that person.

But again, the disciplinary action was over coffee. That is the relevant action. The sexual allegation has nothing to do with THAT case.

---

Apparently I'm wrong. It was about her attack on the player who was alleged to have kissed another soccer player. The parents indicated in previous articles which I can post that the conduct was related to the investigation where she was supposed to defend her fellow player. That changed in the complaint they filed. Stanford said that it was false and misleading that it was over throwing coffee, but I just read their latest statement (see below) and the misconduct at issue involved something she did the football player. There may be some other or additional conduct at play that "resulted in physical injury". Otherwise I don't understand the false and misleading comment made by Stanford. Discovery on this will no doubt be interesting.

I want to share this news story from Stanford University with you: https://news.stanford.edu/?p=45916

---

Obviously, both sides' lawyers are going to play to their strengths. Stanford's statement implies that she was withholding information by saying she was given the chance to provide more information at the end of the process and didn't, when after 6 months I'm not sure what else there is to say. "I was riding my bike and accidentally spilled coffee on him." "He says it was on purpose." "It wasn't". "Really? You happened to 'accidentally' spill coffee on the guy you think assaulted your teammate?" "Yes." After 6 months of investigation, I think they had all the information. She has no incentive not to clear it up if she had anything else to provide.

Obviously, her lawyers are dragging the sexual allegations into it to put Stanford in a bad light, make them look like they are protecting the football team, and care more about spilled coffee than a sexual assault. I get what they are doing, but honestly, I think it is a mistake. I think they are muddying the waters. I think their best case is "Really, Stanford? All this over a cup of coffee?" I'm just thinking of the reaction I would get if I walked up to an Oakland police officer and said "that chick just threw a cup of coffee on me. I want to file a complaint"

I don't really care too much about the legal issues, honestly. This shouldn't have been handled this way and I hope they are privately taking a look at how they handled this. I can't fathom why anyone thought this was worth the time and stress for the student, for the football player, or why the employee(s) at Stanford didn't have anything better to do with their time when the victim didn't want to pursue the issue. This has all the earmarks of a bureaucratic process that is moving for its own sake instead of for the purpose it was intended. The bottom line is that process and/or that email pushed this student over the edge. I mean she is found lying dead in her room with the email open on her computer. Which isn't to say that they are legally or morally culpable. Maybe she had mental issues that couldn't be predicted. Maybe this was the last of many things leading up to this. But Stanford has a duty to all of its students and parents pay a whole lot for that (though I'm sure she was on schollie, that isn't the point). From a biological perspective young people do not have fully formed executive functioning and they don't always see that they can get through stuff. (I read one story about a Mom who sent a perfectly happy teenager to bed and by morning he had killed himself. He had been conned into sending a d**k pick to someone posing as a girl and then blackmailed with threats that they would send it to his parents. He killed himself because he couldn't face his Mom.) You pump up that the Stanford degree is the greatest thing you are ever going to get in your life. You don't then, after a six month investigation, send an email on the last day to beat a deadline threatening to take that away. (plus all of the humiliation that goes with it) If you are going to threaten expulsion, you set a meeting, in person, you bring a counselor, and you walk it through the charges and the process with them. You make sure they understand the situation. You don't just drop an email with a "call this number if you are upset". Even if you have met with them before. The letter is the bad news that you need to address in person. Everything up to that point was what "may" happen.

I suspect that Stanford never had any intention of expelling her or withholding her degree. My guess is that at most they thought they would give her probation. I suspect it never occurred to them that she thought her degree was threatened even though that is what the letter directly said. I suspect that this was a stupid form letter that they use to cover absolutely every contingency when they have a hearing. And honestly, this is about the best possible light I can put on it for Stanford, because if they spent 6 months investigating an alleged coffee throwing and they were still actually thinking about having a hearing where expulsion was on the table...just Wow. Yeah, she should have been able to just roll with it and deal with the consequences that came instead of turning them into a huge monster in her imagination, but you have thousands of different people with different tolerances.

Stanford should know full well that many if not most kids that go to elite universities have put tons of pressure on themselves, often from even before high school and if they are faced with the thing they have worked for all of their life being taken from them, some of them are going to break. Any adolescent psychologist is going to tell you that.

---

Welcome to the wonderful world of Title 9 because so much of what was said in the post about "forgetting about the legal issues" is lost once a sexual harassment protocols are triggered.

Schools are not given any discretion regarding sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual conduct (an unwelcome kiss is not rape under Title 9). Once the investigation starts it out proceed. The investigation probably found the kiss was not unwelcome hence the finding that Title 9 criteria was not meet for the prosecution step. This is because of the perceived failure or unwillingness of prosecutor to bring prosecutions. Moreover, the rules of title 9 (and most private employer harassment rules) require cooperation including testimony before investigators.

It also mandates that there be absolutely no determination of retaliation of against those filling complaint, unfair treatment or discrimination due to a filed complain, including retaliation against those accused of violating title 9, and once again, that the parties to the alleged harmful actions did not pursue a claim of retaliation is irrelevant. The pubic policy I assume is against the history of non-prosecution and the specter that retaliation ruins the independence of the investigation, findings and assessment of sanctions.

The school is stuck once the school hears about retaliation, Title 9 protocols kick in and there is no stopping that train. It is irrelevant that the parties don't want the process to start. The school losses all discretion to work out friendly deals or whatever everyone else thinks should happen, again because the history of side deals has been seen as favoring the actors and not the injured.

Thus, while a lot of what it said in the post makes common sense, it is not reflected in the process the schools must follow. For example, the regulations determine largely what must be said in disclosures to parties. The only school I know that told the Biden administration to sue it for refusing to follow the reimposition of the Title 9 guidelines was Harvard Law School, and I guess given the composition of SCTUS, the Biden administration didn't take HLS up on their invitation.

All this over a maybe unwanted kiss.

---

If this was all mandated by the Title 9 process, why was the unwanted kiss allegation referred to Stanford's Title 9 department and this was not? That alone was clearly not following Title 9 protocols. Maybe you are right that this should have been treated as a retaliation against the accused in a Title 9 case and should have been dragged into that case and referred to their Title 9 department, but by Stanford's own statement, they did not do that. If this was a Title 9 case, only the Title 9 department should have been handling it. I can only think that because it was handled through their normal student disciplinary process, Stanford did not agree with your position. Which brings me back to this was a ridiculous overkill on a coffee spill/throw case.

And in any case, there is nothing in the requirements that stops them from having an in person meeting to go through the charges and have a counselor available to talk to the student and make sure they are okay. When I say I don't care about the legal issues on this one I'm not trying to say I don't care about the law, Stanford should pay. I have said I don't know if they are legally responsible or even morally responsible. I'm saying that whether it is their fault or not, Stanford should be looking at their process and consider whether they can improve this for their students.

Add -

From your link:

Quote:

---

Similarly, the allegation that Stanford failed to address a claim that a football player kissed one of Katie's soccer teammates without her permission is inaccurate. In fact, it is the university that initially reported this claim to Stanford's Title IX office and the police. However, the Title IX office did not pursue the matter since the criteria for moving forward with an investigation were not met.

---

and

Quote:

---

Stanford's Office of Community Standards (OCS) received a complaint regarding alleged behavior by Katie that resulted in physical injury, and as is the practice of the office, it launched a review of that allegation. After extensive factfinding and the opportunity for both sides to provide information, it was found that the high threshold was met for the matter to proceed to a hearing. However, it is important to emphasize that we are committed to supporting students through the student judicial process under OCS, and we did so in this case. In particular, the university offered Katie an advisor to work with her throughout the process and told her she could have a support person of her choosing with her in any meeting or conversation with OCS

---

Her case was based on a complain received by OCS and it stayed with OCS. Stanford says nothing about Title 9 in their statement with respect to the coffee case. It was not referred to the Title 9 office. They made no claim that it was a retaliation case. They went out of their way to separate the two cases in their statement like they had nothing to do with each other. Maybe it is a Title 9 case to you, and you may absolutely be correct that it should have been treated as one, but it clearly wasn't a Title 9 case to Stanford and they clearly didn't treat it as one.

The process at issue is not their Title 9 process. It is their OCS process. They followed their OCS process. Which means, this will be the process that is followed for other OCS cases. So I am back to is this really an appropriate process for managing student disputes?

Quite honestly, this whole thing is bullshyte on everyone's part. He shouldn't have kissed the other girl. Unless he was a repeat offender (or it was worse than portrayed), they should have slapped him, told him off, whatever, and not gotten the admin involved. And if her teammate throws a coffee on him he should have taken it like a man as the price for being an asshat to the other girl. The whole need to have every wrong adjudicated on all sides is ridiculous. Everyone would have been better off if they just settled things and moved on.

---

I can see how this is confusing to you, but OCS: after reeding the media release, but you are wrong factually:

But if you go to the Stanford OCS website you will see it is also the Stanford Title IX Office which includes "the Stanford Student Title IX Process and offers resources for students affected by interpersonal violence and gender-based discrimination." The Mayer matter was being handled by the OCS Tilte IX office.

---

Sorry, I don't agree that I'm factually incorrect here.

If you can link to where it is clear that the Title IX office is part of OCS, I'd be grateful, because I'm not seeing that.

I went to the website. There is one link to Title IX in a drop down box. That link goes to a page that says

Quote:

---

"The Stanford Title IX Office oversees the Stanford Student Title IX Process and offers resources for students affected by interpersonal violence and gender-based discrimination."

---

and

Quote:

---

Title IX Office

Student-related concerns of sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, relationship (dating or domestic) violence and stalking involving students, regardless of whether the alleged Prohibited Conduct occurred on or off of campus and regardless of the sex of the parties involved, should be reported to the Title IX Office.

---

And then has a link to the "Stanford SHARE Title IX" office which had its own completely different policies procedures and personnel, who we are page and a completely different reporting process

The OCS "Who We Are" page does not mention Title IX. The personnel they list do not include any of the personnel listed in the Title IX page. It would make perfect sense for there to be a cross link between departments on a website about student misconduct. There is further a list of policy links that refers questions on sexual harassment to the Sexual Harassment Policy Office and says they can also be reported to the Title IX office. There are actually many cross links to other departments that deal with different misconduct and dispute issues that are clearly not part of OCS.

The OCS page also says under the section about expectations regarding complaints about faculty and staff:

Quote:

---

The Office of Community Standards only investigates and adjudicates potential violations by Stanford students

---

which is definitely not true of Title IX and the Title IX office says as much:

Quote:

---

Title IX Office is the University's central resource for redressing and preventing sexual harassment and violence issues experienced by all Stanford community members.

---

If the Title IX Office reports to the OCS (and to be clear I see no evidence that it does) it still has a completely different process and completely different personnel.

And there is nothing actually confusing about the Stanford statement. If I am factually incorrect on this (and I don't think I am) it is because Stanford issued a factually incorrect statement. Stanford said in their statement:

Quote:

---

However, it is important to emphasize that we are committed to supporting students through the student judicial process under OCS, and we did so in this case

---

The "Judicial Process", that exact name, is specifically laid out on the OCS website. It maps exactly to the Stanford statement, reports of the letter content, and information in the complaint. It is a completely different process from the Title IX process. The Title IX process is much more involved and formal than was reported here by all parties and includes Stanford offering 6 hours of attorney resources to the student which they did not do here. The Title IX process is a very legal process and that was not followed here. It involves formalized written submissions that border on court filings and clearly contemplates heavy attorney involvement. There is even a breakdown of the free attorney services Stanford gives to students in the process (6 hours during investigation, 3 hours hearing prep, all hearing time, 2 hours for appeal)

Stanford said they followed the "Judicial Process" and all of the facts reported about the process that was followed match that process and aren't remotely close to the process (all 56 pages) contained on the Title IX website.

And as for Stanford's hands being tied because that is the suckiness that is Title IX, from Stanford's Title IX policy:

Quote:

---

A Complainant may request that the University not proceed with an Investigation or further resolution under this Procedure. A Complainant's wishes with respect to whether the University Investigates will be respected unless the Title IX Coordinator determines that signing a Formal Complaint over the wishes of the Complainant is not clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances

---

and

Quote:

---

At any time after a Formal Complaint is filed, the Title IX Coordinator or Deputy Title IX Coordinator may, in their discretion, choose to offer and facilitate an Informal Resolution process, so long as both Parties give voluntary, informed, written consent to attempt Informal Resolution...

Upon agreement to an Informal Resolution by the parties and the university, an Information (sic) Resolution is a final outcome of the matter and is not subject to appeal

---

and then they give more details about mediating a dispute resolution process. (this process is only available for complaints between students, which this was. It is not available when the complaint is about faculty or staff)

and

Quote:

---

Discretionary Dismissal. The University may dismiss the Formal Complaint if:

iii. The Complainant informs the Title IX Coordinator in writing that the Complainant desires to withdraw the Formal Complaint or allegations therein

---

So, no, they were not forced to do this over a cup of coffee even if they saw it as a Title IX case, which they didn't.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Guys thanks for the responses but I'm not asking about CA law. I'm trying to wrap my head around how it could be done any other way as BG insinuated initially. Maybe that was just a throwaway disclaimer on his part to limit his comment to where we practice but it got me curious if he was making a specific reference to other jx where service is required before the filing.

Also I understand that the way we do it here in CA provides openings for some gamesmanship, but as we all know SOP can be difficult and time consuming so it's necessary to have a reasonable time period allowed for service. And since the court is required to issue the summons, which is the method for attaching the state's personal jx upon the defendant, that seems to dictate the order of filing before service. IMO allowing attorneys to issue summons (like we can issue subpoenas after the court has jx) would likely be even more problematic and quite possibly illegal.

I guess maybe I should also add that I am also aware of the common professional courtesy of attaching a copy of the prospective complaint with your final demand letter, particularly where you know the d is represented by counsel.

---

My experience is that "common professional courtesy" depends greatly on the area of law, and often the community you are practicing in and whether you attach the complaint to the final demand letter or you give it to them the last possible second you are required to is definitely one of those things that varies. I have been shocked by some areas of law where common professional courtesy means essentially "eff you for representing scumbags on the other side" and nothing is given freely and attorneys will even report supposed ethics violations to the bar on a regular basis, which any line I have worked in is a big effing deal to do.

wifeisafurd said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Guys thanks for the responses but I'm not asking about CA law. I'm trying to wrap my head around how it could be done any other way as BG insinuated initially. Maybe that was just a throwaway disclaimer on his part to limit his comment to where we practice but it got me curious if he was making a specific reference to other jx where service is required before the filing.

Also I understand that the way we do it here in CA provides openings for some gamesmanship, but as we all know SOP can be difficult and time consuming so it's necessary to have a reasonable time period allowed for service. And since the court is required to issue the summons, which is the method for attaching the state's personal jx upon the defendant, that seems to dictate the order of filing before service. IMO allowing attorneys to issue summons (like we can issue subpoenas after the court has jx) would likely be even more problematic and quite possibly illegal.

I guess maybe I should also add that I am also aware of the common professional courtesy of attaching a copy of the prospective complaint with your final demand letter, particularly where you know the d is represented by counsel.

---

Absolutely on the last paragraph, though I have never been involved in case that is tried first in the media.

That said, I tended to represent public agencies, which have a whole separate process of filing claims in California. But I did represent developers who found themselves embroiled in litigation years after a complaint was filed, unaware they had been even named in an action. Since these matters were turned over to insurance companies, I can't really tell you about the procedural posture. I would defer to the litigators.

---

Simplest explanations for that could be that they were Does added during discovery, or cross defendants. Latter is common in cd actions, where often HOA sues builder and then builder turns around and sues subs, materialmen, and developer (if separate).

I hadn't heard that Stanford has lost Shaw.
Thank you for diverging from Football Growls talk to have this news thread jettisoned to OT!