## Facts

- Orie Alfred Brown, a tenured associate professor at a California state university, was dismissed based on charges of “unprofessional conduct” and “failure to perform the duties of his office,” characterized as a “series and pattern of sexual harassment of female students.”
- The university brought charges in 1981 under Education Code § 89535(a), (b), and (f), alleging five incidents involving amorous overtures toward students (two incidents in 1975 and three in 1979).
- The university admitted it had no rule or policy generally prohibiting consensual faculty-student dating or relationships.
- The two 1975 incidents involved alleged attempts to embrace and kiss adult students in Brown’s office; the department chair knew of them, no formal discipline was imposed at the time, and Brown later received tenure despite the allegations being known during the tenure process.
- A 1979 incident led to a student complaint under Title IX and triggered an investigation; Brown was alleged to have told the student he wanted to sleep with her.
- After an administrative hearing, the State Personnel Board found two of the five incidents baseless and found no credible evidence that Brown’s conduct was tied to threats of retaliation or actual retaliation.
- The Board nonetheless upheld dismissal based on three incidents it found substantiated (two from 1975 and one from 1979).
- Brown sought a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5; the trial court denied relief and upheld the Board’s decision.
- Brown appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether laches barred reliance on the 1975 incidents as grounds for discipline due to an extreme, unjustified delay in bringing charges that prejudiced Brown.
2. Whether, if the 1975 incidents were barred, the remaining 1979 incident was sufficient to support dismissal on the charged theory of a “series and pattern of sexual harassment” and related statutory grounds.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed issuance of a writ ordering reinstatement.
- The court held laches precluded use of the 1975 incidents because the delay in charging was extreme, unjustified, and prejudicial.
- The court held the remaining 1979 incident, standing alone, was insufficient to sustain dismissal framed as a “series and pattern” of sexual harassment, particularly where the Board rejected allegations of threats or retaliation.

## Legal Principles

- In administrative discipline lacking a governing limitations period, laches may bar stale charges when delay is unreasonable and causes prejudice.
- Prejudice may be shown by impaired ability to defend due to the passage of time and by reliance interests where the employer knew of alleged conduct, took no timely action, and conferred significant status (including tenure) before later seeking severe discipline.
- When discipline is charged and justified as a pattern of misconduct, removal of stale or unproven incidents can defeat the charged theory; remaining isolated conduct must independently support the level of discipline imposed.
- An agency decision upholding termination cannot stand where its stated grounds depend materially on allegations barred by laches and the remaining sustained conduct does not substantiate the charged basis for dismissal.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the dismissal because the employer’s delayed reliance on pre-tenure incidents was barred by laches and the sole remaining post-tenure incident did not support termination as charged, requiring reinstatement.


Brown v. State Personnel Bd., 213 Cal. Rptr. 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)