Jewish Professor’s and Students’ Lawsuit Against USC Dismissed
The plaintiffs just withdrew the case, though their counsel reports that they plan to refile in the next two weeks with additional allegations. For now, I thought I’d post about the March opinion in the case by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, in Doe Jewish USC Faculty Member 2004 v. USC, which dismissed an earlier version of the Complaint:
Plaintiffs … bring claims relating to protests on Defendant’s campus … regarding the Israel-Hamas war. Plaintiffs … allege Defemdant “invited, encouraged, aided, abetted, permitted, allowed, and subsequently appeased, enabled and negotiated with violent, sword and other weapon-wielding, Jew-hating Hamas-supporting campus terrorists antisemites … who infiltrated and overtook its Los Angeles campus … setting up tents and occupying [Defendant’s] property under the [Defendant]’s watchful eyes.”
Plaintiff Faculty Member brings this action in an “individual capacity as a Jewish USC Professor who suffered damages and harm as a result of [Defendant]’s conduct and as a representative on behalf of all other similarly situated Jewish Professors.” Â Plaintiff Student sues “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.”
The court rejected all of plaintiffs’ claims:
Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1)[:] Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated the Bane Act by interfering with their right to practice freely their religion while on the USC campus. The Bane Act provides a civil cause of action against anyone who “interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of [California][.]”
Further, the plaintiff “must show the defendant interfered with or attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s legal right by threatening or committing violent acts. Speech is insufficient to establish the requisite threat unless it includes a threat of violence.” Additionally, a defendant must have the “specific intent to violate a constitutional right.” …
Here, Plaintiffs do not allege plausibly a violation of the Bane Act, as they do not allege Defendant threatened, intimidated, or coerced Plaintiffs into believing that, if Plaintiffs practiced their religion on the USC campus, Defendant would commit violence against them. To the contrary, Plaintiffs allege the protestors threatened them and Plaintiffs reasonably believed the protestors would commit violence against Plaintiffs if Plaintiffs exercised their faith.
While Plaintiffs allege Defendant aided and abetted the protestors through various acts, these acts do not constitute plausibly threats, intimidation, or coercion from which Plaintiffs could believe reasonably Defendant would commit violence against Plaintiffs. Specifically, first, Defendant’s act of permitting protestors on campus cannot plausibly be considered a threat that Defendant would commit violence against Plaintiffs if they practiced their faith on campus. Second, Defendant’s act of telling Plaintiffs “to work remotely from home, or remain in their offices or dorms for their ‘own safety'” cannot plausibly be considered a threat that Defendant would commit violence against Plaintiffs if they did not work remotely from home—indeed, the opposite appears true, i.e., Defendant was attempting to protect Plaintiffs from potential harm.
Third, Defendant’s act of inviting the valedictorian to give a graduation speech cannot plausibly be considered a threat that Defendant would commit violence against Plaintiffs. [The allegation about the valedictorian, from the complaint, was that “The le
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
