Date: 03-31-2000

Case Style: Ru Paster v. Gonzaga University, a Washington Non-profit corporation, et al.

Case Number: 94-2-03120-6

Judge: Kenneth H. Kato.

Court: Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington.

Plaintiff's Attorney: Laurel H. Siddoway of Randall & Danskin, Spokane, Washington.

Defendant's Attorney: Charles K. Wiggins and Kenneth W. Masters of Wiggins Law Office, Bainbridge Island, Washington.

Description: Defamation - Negligence - Breach of Educational Contract - Violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) - On October 5, 1993, Roberta League, the certificate specialist in Gonzaga's school of education, overheard Gonzaga student Julia Lynch telling a friend the following: (W)hen I was an RA, my resident, (Jane Doe), was in obvious physical pain. She couldn't eat, she couldn't sleep, and she was having blood in her urine, stomach cramps, she said it was a result of having sex with (John Doe), this man she has been seeing, and no one from the school bothered to ask her any questions or find out what really happened. They had a little bit of information that she was hurt and tucked it away. The conversation concerned League because John Doe, a student in the school of education, was at that time student teaching. Soon afterward, League discussed the matter with Dr. Susan Kyle, the director of field experience for student teachers at Gonzaga. Kyle and League decided that they needed to investigate the situation further. They were concerned that the allegations League had overheard about John Doe might affect the dean's ability to submit an affidavit supporting Doe's application for teacher certification.

On October 14, 1993, Kyle and League met with Lynch. According to written declarations that Kyle and League drafted in February 1994, which were admitted at trial, Lynch told them that Jane Doe had admitted to her that John Doe had sexually assaulted her three times, in late November or December, 1992. Lynch said further that Jane Doe had claimed that John Doe verbally coerced her into participating in `aberrant sexual behavior' with `other objects besides his penis,' and had urged her to engage in multiple partner sex. Lynch told League and Kyle that she had accompanied Jane Doe to the health center soon after the sexual assaults, and that the nurse had concluded that Jane Doe was date raped. League admitted at trial that Lynch told her in the October 1993 meeting that Jane Doe had denied the rape allegations when Lynch spoke to Jane Doe in December 1992. At the meeting with Kyle and League, Lynch agreed to approach Jane Doe. When she did, Jane Doe became angry and told Lynch that she did not want to pursue a rape charge. On January 26, 1994, Jane Doe met with Janet Burcalow, chair of the department of teacher education. Jane Doe tried to persuade Burcalow not to pursue the matter. But according to Burcalow, Jane Doe refused to say that nothing serious had happened in the relationship, and admitted being afraid of what might happen if John Doe found out she had talked about their relationship.

Some time in February 1994, Dr. Corrine McGuigan, the dean of the school of education, met with Kyle, Burcalow, League, and Sweeney. The dean concluded after the meeting that sufficient evidence of a serious behavioral problem precluded her from signing the affidavit supporting John Doe's application for teacher certification. John Doe did not hear about Gonzaga's investigation into the date rape allegations until March 4, 1994. On that date, Doe was called into Dean McGuigan's office, where he was escorted to a private room, and left to read a letter that the dean had signed. The letter informed Doe that the dean would not give him the moral character affidavit required to support his application for certification to teach, due to the sexual assault allegations. Doe was not told who had made the allegations.

John Doe sued Jane Doe. Two years later, John Doe sued Lynch, League and Kyle separately. The two actions were consolidated. Jane Doe counter-claimed against John Doe for sexual assault. John Doe and Jane Doe settled their lawsuit in 1996, dismissing their claims against each other. A jury trial was held between March 17 and April 1, 1997 on the remaining claims.

In response to pretrial and trial motions, the court admitted several documents that Gonzaga personnel had prepared at the request of corporate counsel, over Gonzaga's objections that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege. The court refused to admit the settlement agreement between John Doe and Jane Doe. The court also refused to admit the testimony of two witnesses who came forward after trial had begun; both witnesses would have testified that Jane Doe had told them that she had been sexually assaulted by a boyfriend. Gonzaga offered the evidence not to prove the truth of the allegation, but to impeach Jane Doe's testimony that she had not used the terms `rape' or `date rape.' By the time of trial, Jane Doe had moved to North Carolina and was unwilling to attend. Instead, John Doe presented Jane Doe's testimony through a 1997 videotaped deposition, portions of which were shown to the jury . In both the videotaped testimony and an earlier 1995 deposition, Jane Doe essentially denied both that John Doe had sexually assaulted her, and that she had made most of the statements that Gonzaga personnel attributed to her.

Outcome: The jury returned a verdict for John Doe on all five theories of recovery. The jury awarded damages in the following amounts: Defamation $ 500,000 Invasion of privacy $ 100,000 Violation of FERPA $ 150,000 Punitive damages under FERPA $ 300,000 Breach of educational contract $ 55,000 Negligence $ 50,000 Total $1,155,000

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: The jury was not instructed to segregate the damages, and did not specify which of Gonzaga's wrongful behaviors gave rise to which damages. Gonzaga appealed. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division I, reversed and remanded for a new trial on the defamation claim only. See: ___ P.2d ___, ___ Wn. App. ___ (1-31-2000). Note: The above date reflects the appellate court decision date, not the original trial date. Reported by JAB.