Yu v ISU: Update on Trial and What’s Next in Case

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.