Doe

Doe v. The Leland Stanford Junior University CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 26, 2024H050567California7,640 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Jane was a student from South Korea and was enrolled in Stanford’s bioengineering graduate program. As part of her curriculum, Jane rotated through several labs to determine which lab she would join to conduct research. As of June 2019, Jane had officially joined one of the labs. John, who came to the United States from Iran, was a staff researcher in the same lab. His work entailed collecting data from experiments on animals for use in presentations and scholarly articles. Although John had no supervisory authority in the lab, he sometimes oriented new students and organized lab retreats. A. Report to Stanford’s Title IX Office2 In September 2020, the lab’s faculty director noticed that Jane seemed “down” and was not participating during a group meeting. The director texted Jane after the meeting and then had a one-on-one call with her. Jane disclosed during the call that after John provided her with data at the director’s request, he asked Jane how she would “repay” him. Jane also disclosed that John asked to whisper in her ear and asked her for a hug.

2 “Title IX refers to T]itle IX of the [F]ederal Education Amendments of 1972 [], 20…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.