#Jun yu gromet trial
IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY SUMMARY * Title VI The panel filed: (1) an order withdrawing the opinion filed on August 31, 2021, and replacing it with a superseding opinion and (2) a superseding opinion affirming the district court’s judgment after a bench trial in favor of Idaho State University in an action brought under Title VI by Jun Yu. Order Opinion by Judge Gould Concurrence by Judge Miller 2 YU V. Bush, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted JSeattle, Washington Filed OctoBefore: Ronald M. 4:15-cv-00430-REB ORDER AND OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Ronald E. IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee. This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 31, 2021.įOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN YU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The defendant in a Title VI case, however, is required to present a race-neutral explanation for its action once the plaintiff has presented a prima facie case of discrimination. Third, the expert relied on the use of race-neutral explanations as evidence of unconscious bias. Here, though, the expert’s claimed ability to identify aversive racism did not appear to rest on the kind of scientific principles that the Supreme Court has demanded. Second, before allowing scientific evidence to be presented to a jury, the district court must assess whether it rests on tested scientific principles. First, expert testimony is not admissible simply to cast doubt on the credibility of other witnesses, but that is essentially what the expert did here. IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY 3 ever, be admissible.
He wrote separately to note several reasons why testimony of the kind offered in this case will rarely, if YU V. Concurring, Judge Miller wrote that he joined the opinion in full.
The panel declined to address whether implicit bias may be probative or used as evidence of intentional discrimination under Title VI because resolution of this issue was not necessary to the disposition of this appeal. The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Yu failed to show that the university intentionally discriminated against him. At trial, Yu relied in part on expert testimony that he was a victim of aversive racism, a theory of prejudice that the parties, the district court, and the expert compared to unconscious or implicit racial bias. Yu, a Chinese international student, alleged that the university intentionally discriminated against him based on his race or national origin when it dismissed him from a doctoral program in clinical psychology.
The panel filed: (1) an order withdrawing the opinion filed on August 31, 2021, and replacing it with a superseding opinion and (2) a superseding opinion affirming the district court’s judgment after a bench trial in favor of Idaho State University in an action brought under Title VI by Jun Yu.
0 kommentar(er)
