SYRACUSE RULING: Major Victory For Accused Seeking To Challenge Bad Disciplinary Policies
Syracuse University plausibly employed a “result-driven” process in a sexual misconduct proceeding to find a male student guilty, a federal judge ruled last month, denying the university’s motion to dismiss the expelled student’s lawsuit. John Doe alleged that Syracuse violated Title IX and the New York constitution’s due process clause, and committed breach of contract, negligence and gross negligence in the Title IX proceeding against him. U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes dismissed most of these but allowed a handful of breach-of-contract claims to go forward, including John’s assertion that Syracuse ignored its own evidence standard.
“This is a major victory,” Allen Law, which represents John, wrote in a blog post: Sannes firmly rejected Syracuse’s contention that its Student Code and policies were unenforceable as “contractual promises.” “In New York, the policies, handbooks, and student codes published by the university are binding contracts with students,” the law firm wrote. “John Doe argued for the simple position that a university like Syracuse should be held accountable for not following its own rules.” Her ruling provides “an important warning. Universities can no longer take a haphazard, arbitrary approach to evidence and then hide behind formal procedures to justify any result they wish.”
The “significant” ruling drew cheers from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education as well. By holding that “biased, one-sided procedures may actually conflict with a university’s contractual promise to employ the preponderance of the evidence standard, the court’s ruling gives accused students another avenue to challenge sham disciplinary processes.” The ruling is great news for students seeking to challenge bad disciplinary policies, according to FIRE’s Harris.
thecollegefix-Ellington
