In a dramatic legal confrontation, an adjunct lecturer has taken her former employer to court over allegations of discrimination and harassment. Jane Doe filed a complaint against Santa Clara University in the Court of Appeal of the State of California on September 25, 2024. The case involves serious accusations including race, sex, and gender discrimination, alongside claims of harassment and a hostile work environment.
Jane Doe's employment at Santa Clara University (SCU) spanned from 2016 to 2018. Her lawsuit, initiated in April 2022, alleges that during her tenure she was subjected to various forms of discrimination and mistreatment due to her Asian-American heritage and gender. According to Doe, the university's management began marginalizing her after she engaged an engineering firm to evaluate her workplace for ergonomic and environmental issues in February 2018. This alleged change in behavior included refusal by the department chair to provide recommendation letters for tenure-track positions and exclusion from faculty events.
A particularly disturbing incident occurred in May 2018 when Doe claims she experienced a sharp pain while walking on campus. Later that day, she discovered small objects embedded in her body which she believes were evidence of sexual assault and battery. Despite these alarming events, Doe asserts that SCU failed to investigate or address her complaints adequately.
The legal proceedings reveal that Doe faced significant hurdles due to timing issues with her filings. The trial court sustained SCU's demurrer primarily because Doe’s claims were not filed within the statutory time limits required by law. Her administrative complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) were deemed untimely as they were submitted more than a year after her last day at SCU.
Doe sought relief under several statutes including the Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and specific sections of the Labor Code related to retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions. However, the court found these claims time-barred or insufficiently substantiated.
Despite being granted a "Right to Sue" notice by both DFEH and EEOC after filing late administrative complaints, Jane Doe’s attempts to pursue legal action have been thwarted by procedural barriers. The trial court also dismissed her breach of contract claim due to lack of evidence supporting any contractual obligation breached by SCU.
Representing herself throughout this arduous process, Jane Doe appealed the trial court's decision but faced affirmation from appellate judges Grover, Lie, and Bromberg who upheld the lower court’s judgment without leave for amendment. This leaves Jane Doe without recourse under current allegations unless new evidence or arguments are presented.
The case was presided over by Acting Presiding Judge Grover along with Judges Lie and Bromberg under Case ID H050798 at Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 22CV397478.