A court's review of a college's or university's disciplinary action against a student limited to whether it complied with its own rules in the process
A court's review of a college's or university's disciplinary action against a student limited to whether it complied with its own rules in the process Matter of Hyman v Cornell Univ., 2011 NY Slip Op 01548, Appellate Division, Third Department A Cornell faculty member alleged that a graduate student exchanged a series of e-mails. The faculty member told the student she should not contact him after the student suggested that they have a sexual affair. When the student continued to send the faculty member e-mails, he told her that he that he would take formal action against petitioner if she persisted in communicating with him. Although the student agreed to discontinue communication, she subsequently e-mailed Cornell's president, copying the faculty member, alleging that her "institutional rights" had been repeatedly violated by Department faculty. The faculty member instituted proceedings against the graduate student and ultimately filed a complaint accusing her of harassment in violation of Cornell's Code of Conduct.* The graduate student than filed a complaint against the faculty member, accusing him of sexual harassment and retaliation. Ultimately the Cornell's Hearing Board sent the student a written reprimand and issued a "no-contact order." The student sued, but Supreme Court dismissed her Article 78 petition. Subsequently the Appellate Division dismissed the student's appeal of the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that: It is well settled that in reviewing a college's or university's disciplinary determinations, "court[s] must determine 'whether the university substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings," citing Matter of Warner v Elmira Coll., 59 AD3d 909. The court explained that only in the event the college or university "has not substantially complied with its own guidelines or its determination is not rationally based upon the evidence, the determination will be annulled as arbitrary and capricious." * Cornell's Code of Conduct makes it a violation "[t]o intentionally harass another person by . . . acting toward that person in a manner [that] is . . . severely annoying . . . and beyond the scope of free speech." The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01548.htm .
Read more detail on Recent Administrative Law Posts –
Legal notice about the A court's review of a college's or university's disciplinary action against a student limited to whether it complied with its own rules in the process
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to A court's review of a college's or university's disciplinary action against a student limited to whether it complied with its own rules in the process?
- A court's review of a disciplinary arbitration award is limited and does not encompass consideration of the merits of the award or the penalty imposed
- The court's fact-review power of an administrative agency's determination is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the determination
- Guidance for Consumer Products & Services Companies: A Review of the Supreme Court's 2011 First Amendment and Class Action Decisions (Webinar)
- Admitting evidence of prior disciplinary action taken against the charged party
- FINRA Disciplinary Action Against David Lerner Associates Prompts Other Firms to Offer Less Risky and Misleading REITs
- A court's standards of review of decisions that are the product of compulsory arbitration differ from its standard of review of decisions resulting from voluntary arbitration procedures
- Counseling memoranda may constitute disciplinary action when coupled with more than "job-related feedback"
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- Court rules $10.1 billion class action against Philip Morris may be reopened
- European Commission threatens legal action against member states over banking rules
This entry was posted in Administrative law
and tagged Action
. Bookmark the permalink