Due-process-violation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . In the present case Petitioner—a tenured professor at the University of Puerto Rico (UPR), teaching at the Utuado campus of UPR (“UPRU”)—was charged with sexual harassment of a student by UPRU. At the hearings, Petitioner’s counsel was not permitted to cross-examine two witnesses on a subject material to Petitioner’s theory of the case. After the hearings had finished, the rector added a series of facts that were not alleged in the statement of charges, and used them to terminate the Petitioner, not for having committed sexual harassment of the student as alleged, but rather for a charge not contained in the statement of charges. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals of Puerto . Rico has consistently applied the clear and convincing standard of proof to public employees’ dismissal cases following the case law developments of the Supreme . Court of Puerto Rico. However, it refused to apply that standard of proof in UPRU’s case against Petitioner. The questions presented are: 1. In the circumstances described in the first paragraph, was the due process violated? 2. In the circumstances described in the second paragraph, was the notice requirement of due process violated? 8. In the circumstances described in the third paragraph, did the Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico violate the Due Process Clause and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.