The trial for my husband’s lawsuit, Jun Yu v Idaho State University, took place from Feb 26 to March 1. As it turned out, it was a bench trial — and it’s still not over yet.

On Feb 21, the Court issued a decision stating that “the Court has concluded that the remaining claim for trial in this case – that of a Title VI discrimination claim – and the nature of the relief sought by Plaintiff should he prevail on his liability case, do not allow for a jury trial.” So the trial only took place before the federal judge in this case — Judge Bush, who will also decide the result.

We presented all of our strongest evidence and testimony at the trial. Our witnesses were as follows:

• A former faculty member from ISU supporting Jun
• Myself
• Jun Yu, whose testimony included showing how similarly situated students were treated more favorably than he was
• Dr. Cheryl Chase, an internship supervisor supporting Jun
• Dr. Gerald Koocher, a past President of the American Psychological Association and author of Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions, the same textbook ISU used to train Mr. Yu in ethics in psychology in 2009 and 2011. (see Dr. Gerald Koocher’s expert report)
• Dr. Shannon Chavez-Korell, who served on the 2012 revision team for the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice and Organizational Change for Psychologists (APA, 2002). (see Dr. Shannon Chavez-Korell’s expert report)
• Dr. Leslie Zorwick, whose scholarship centers broadly upon stereotyping, prejudice, identity, perspective taking, and the social benefits of integrated educational settings. (see Dr. Leslie Zorwick’s expert report)
• Dr. Tyler Bowles, an economics expert who testified to damages Jun suffered

ISU only had four witnesses who testified — all were fact witnesses. The university did not present three of the witnesses they had initially planned to have at the trial — one is their sole expert witness Dr. Dru Gladney, a sociologist whose testimony had been limited by the Court; the other two not present were supervisors from Jun’s internship that allegedly were supporting ISU.

However, the trial hasn’t officially ended because the judge gave the option to submit written closing arguments, which both parties decided to do. So, the first round of written closing arguments from our side will be due March 25. The Defendant will submit their closing arguments April 1, and then we will have a chance to submit a rebuttal on April 8. Afterwards, the judge will then be able to issue a decision on the case. We don’t exactly know when the decision will come, but we will be sure to let you know when it comes out.

It has been a very busy few weeks for me, hence I’ve gotten a bit behind in posting. Expect my posts back on schedule next week, where I’ll provide some further updates on the case and more. In the meantime, wishing all of you a marvelous March!

P.S.: In the photo above you can see me and my husband Jun standing together with the trial team. Seated in front is our primary lawyer Ron Coulter. Behind him, wearing an off-white suit, is Holly Sutherland, our second chair lawyer, and beside her is Crystal Anderson, our paralegal.

(New to Jun Yu v. Idaho State University, the discrimination case that my husband filed against the university? Learn more at our fact sheet.)

Dear friends and supporters,

We have some news to share about Jun Yu versus Idaho State University.

First off, our trial date has moved from November 13, 2018 to February 26, 2019. ISU proposed the delay in trial date and the Court granted that request.

However, in a surprise move, the Court also stated the following in its decision to allow the trial delay:

…in the interest of fairness and justice, the Court will require that Defendant pay the expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by Plaintiff as a direct result of the trial continuance that cannot reasonably be avoided.[emphasis added]

We are very grateful for this, as well as the fact that the Court acknowledged the following:

Plaintiff understandably opposes the motion for reasons of expense, the difficulty in reassembling witnesses, the inconvenience for Plaintiff and his counsel in changing the extensive planning that has gone into the trial preparation, and because of the additional delay in bringing the case to a conclusion. In almost any other circumstance, the Court would not agree to allow for such a continuance because the filing of the motion on the eve of trial inescapably creates a hardship, will cause additional expense, and is potentially prejudicial to Plaintiff.[emphasis added]

You can view all these documents and more at our Jun Yu v. Idaho State University Federal Lawsuit – Public Documents page.

Jun and I remain confident moving forward and believe we are closer than ever to gaining victory and justice. We couldn’t have made it this far, though, without your support. Thank you so much for being there for us.

We still have work to do — but we’re encouraged and determined to keep fighting until justice prevails.

P.S.: If you’re new to this discrimination case, learn more through our Jun Yu v. Idaho State University – Fact Sheet.

We have some good news for you in my husband’s case (Jun Yu versus Idaho State University)!

But before we get into that, here’s a quick recap of why my husband is suing Idaho State University.

Imagine if your past 5 years of hard work were suddenly robbed from you…if your entire career and future were abruptly ruined.

That’s what happened to Jun Yu, my husband, who was abruptly forced out of his PhD program without any warning or remediation. The university also denied him the PhD he rightfully earned, as if all the hard work he did for the past 5 years was for nothing.

As the expert report of Dr. Shannon Chavez-Korell noted on page 8:

At the time of dismissal, Mr. Yu was a student in good standing with a cumulative GPA of 3.69, and he had only one pre-doctoral internship to complete prior to receiving his Doctorate in Clinical Psychology. Prior to the May 3, 2013 dismissal letter from ISU, Mr. Yu had never been on probation and had never been informed that he was in danger of being dismissed from the doctoral program.

Additional leading psychologists have concluded ISU violated professional and academic standards (including the author of the ethics textbook ISU used to train him); meanwhile ISU has no psychology experts supporting their case. You can learn more about the psychology experts supporting Jun at the Jun Yu versus Idaho State University fact sheet.

Despite the mounting evidence that they have committed serious violations of the law and professional standards, ISU has continued to deny doing anything wrong and attempted to avoid any accountability. This has been the case ever since filing the lawsuit in September 2015.

So one great piece of news to share is this — we have defeated ISU’s efforts to have the case thrown out and a trial date has been set for November 13, 2018.

Meanwhile, we are even more confident about the case since we obtained strong evidence that shows ISU discriminated against Jun.

You may recall that last year, the judge ordered ISU to hand over student records. Those court-ordered documents revealed that, in at least 6 major areas, ISU treated Jun in a discriminatory manner compared to similarly situated students. That includes the fact that, while Jun was never warned he was or would be at risk of dismissal (and was ultimately dismissed), 7 other students in the ISU program were explicitly warned (sometimes multiple times) that they were or would be at risk of dismissal (and none of these students were dismissed).

You can view the evidence for yourself on the public record. However, this table is an excellent overview of the findings:

If you would like to explore the case in further detail, you’re welcome to take a look at the Jun Yu versus Idaho State University fact sheet to learn more. Additionally, legal geeks or anyone curious about the details can visit Jun Yu v. Idaho State University Federal Lawsuit – Public Documents.

Thank you always for your support, which has helped enable our fight for justice and helped us achieve these small victories. We will continue to fight until justice prevails.

P.S.: Generosity — the platform we’ve used for online fundraising — will close its doors on March 29, 2018, the last date where we can still accept financial support through the website. If you or someone you know would like to support us financially through Generosity, you’re welcome to do so in these last few days. Thank you!