John Doe v. Gonzaga University, et al.

Petitioner John Doe sought review of a Court of
Appeals' decision reversing the jury's award of damages (based on claims of
defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, violation of his rights under
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), and breach
of contract) and remanding the case for retrial solely on the defamation
claim. We hold that the jury was properly instructed and that there is
substantial evidence to sustain the jury's verdict on the defamation,
invasion of privacy, violation of FERPA, and breach of contract claims.
Because Gonzaga had no duty to investigate allegations against John Doe,
there is no cognizable claim for negligence. Therefore, the Court of
Appeals' decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is
remanded to reinstate the judgment on all claims except negligence, which
is to be dismissed.

FACTS

The witnesses presented widely divergent accounts of the facts in this
case.
In late 1992, while John Doe was an elementary education student at Gonzaga
University (Gonzaga), he had a sexually intimate relationship with Jane
Doe, a student who was studying special education at Gonzaga.1
In October 1993, Roberta League (League), Gonzaga's teacher
certification specialist, overheard student Julia Lynch (Lynch) talking
with another student about Lynch's dissatisfaction with the way the school
dealt with complaints of date rape. Lynch said that when she had been a
resident assistant, she had observed Jane Doe in obvious physical pain,
which Jane Doe said was the result of having sex with "John." Lynch was
angry that no one from Gonzaga had bothered to find out what had happened.
League recognized the name "John"; she knew John Doe was a student teacher
in the education program at Gonzaga. Two days later, League told Dr. Susan
Kyle (Kyle), Gonzaga's director of field experience for student teachers,
what she had overheard. Kyle and League decided that they needed to
investigate the situation.2 League was concerned that the allegations she
had overheard about John Doe might affect the dean's ability to submit an
affidavit supporting John Doe's application for teacher certification.3
The two women met with Lynch on October 14, 1993. According to Lynch, Jane
Doe told Lynch that John Doe had sexually assaulted her three times in late
November or December 1992. Lynch also said that she accompanied Jane Doe
to the student health center soon after the last assault, and the nurse
concluded that Jane Doe had been date raped.4 According to League and
Kyle, Lynch said that Jane Doe claimed John Doe verbally coerced her into
participating in "aberrant sexual behavior" with "other objects besides his
penis," and urged Jane Doe to engage in multiple partner sex.5 Clerk's
Papers (CP) at 98, 195.

At the conclusion of the meeting, League and Kyle asked Lynch to see if
Jane Doe would speak with them about her relationship with John Doe. Lynch
did, and Jane Doe became angry and told Lynch that she did not want to make
a complaint. Lynch told Kyle and League of Jane Doe's response.

League also contacted Adelle Nore, an investigator for the Office of
the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), the state agency which
certifies teachers. League and other Gonzaga personnel spoke with Nore by
telephone numerous times about the allegations of John Doe's sexual
misconduct, and League identified John Doe to Nore by name.
Nore testified that she believed Gonzaga personnel needed to speak with
both John Doe and Jane Doe about the allegations. However, Gonzaga
personnel did not ask her for her advice and did not tell Nore that they
had not talked to John Doe. It was Nore's understanding in her
conversations with League and Kyle that the alleged victim was credible and
prepared to make a statement.

* * *

In June 1994, John Doe brought an action against Jane Doe and Gonzaga.

John Doe sued Jane Doe for falsely accusing him of sexual assault or rape;
he sued Gonzaga for republishing the accusations "both between and among
staff and faculty of Gonzaga and by reporting the same to the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction." CP at 13. John Doe sought to
recover from Gonzaga for defamation, negligence, and breach of educational
contract. He also brought a separate action against Lynch, League, and
Kyle, individually, and the two actions were consolidated by stipulation.
Jane Doe cross-claimed against Gonzaga, alleging defamation and negligent
investigation. She counterclaimed against John Doe for sexually assaulting
her. John Doe and Jane Doe agreed to dismiss their claims against each
other in September 1996.

Jane Doe later filed a notice of dismissal of her claims against Gonzaga,
leaving only John Doe's claims against Gonzaga and its employees for trial.
John Doe's amended complaint asserted claims for defamation, intrusion into
his private affairs, and a 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 claim for violation of 20
U.S.C. sec. 1232g(b) (FERPA) against all parties, and claims for negligence
and breach of educational contract against Gonzaga.

Following a trial held in Spokane County Superior Court between March
17 and April 1, 1997, the jury returned a verdict in John Doe's favor,
awarding him damages as follows:

Defamation $ 500,000

Breach of Educational Contract 55,000

Negligence 50,000

Invasion of Privacy 100,000

Violation of "FERPA" Rights 150,000

Punitive Damages for FERPA Violation 300,000


TOTAL $1,155,000

The trial court entered judgment on the verdict and also awarded John Doe
attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988.

Gonzaga appealed to the Court of Appeals, seeking review of the
judgment and the trial court's rulings denying Gonzaga's posttrial motions
and awarding attorney fees to the plaintiff. John Doe cross-appealed,
seeking review of the trial court's order denying his motion for CR 26(g)
sanctions. By order of the Court of Appeals, the matter was transferred
from Division Three to Division One.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the
Court's opinion.

The Court of Appeals' rulings dismissing John Doe's negligence claim and
remanding to the trial court for imposition of an appropriate sanction
against Gonzaga for violation of CR 26(g) are affirmed.
The trial court's supplemental judgment for attorney fees and costs is
reinstated, and John Doe is awarded reasonable attorney fees and expenses
on appeal pursuant to RAP 18.1.

Unknown

Unknown

None