Hyman v. Cornell University
Appellate Division, Third Department 82 A.D.3d 1809 (2011).
In the case of Marita Hyman v. Cornell University, the legal issue revolves around whether the university’s determination that Hyman violated its Code of Conduct was reasonable and rational. Hyman, a graduate student, challenged the university’s disciplinary actions against her, claiming procedural errors and irrational decision-making.
Article 78 Lawyer in New York
Facts of the Case
Marita Hyman, a graduate student at Cornell University, engaged in a series of email exchanges with senior professor Davydd Greenwood. The situation escalated when Hyman suggested a sexual affair, prompting Greenwood to request that she cease all communication with him. Despite agreeing to this request, Hyman continued to send emails to Greenwood, leading him to warn her of formal action if she persisted.
In November 2006, Hyman copied Greenwood on an email to the university’s president, alleging that her “institutional rights” had been violated by the faculty of the Anthropology Department. This action led Greenwood to file a formal complaint against Hyman for harassment, claiming she violated the university’s Code of Conduct. Hyman responded by filing a counter-complaint against Greenwood, accusing him of sexual harassment and retaliation.
The university’s Hearing Board dismissed Hyman’s complaint as lacking merit and found her guilty of harassing Greenwood. The board issued a written reprimand and a no-contact order, which was later affirmed on appeal with minor modifications. Hyman then commenced a proceeding under Article 78 to review the university’s determination, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, Tompkins County. Hyman appealed this decision.
Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, upheld the university’s determination, finding it neither unreasonable nor irrational. The court emphasized that the university had substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings. The court found no evidence of procedural deviations or irrational decision-making by the university.
Applicable Law
In reviewing a university’s disciplinary determinations, courts must determine whether the university substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines for disciplinary proceedings. If a university fails to comply with its guidelines or if its determination is not rationally based on the evidence, the decision can be annulled as arbitrary and capricious.
The court cited several precedents, including Matter of Warner v. Elmira College and Matter of Rensselaer Society of Engineers v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, to support its decision. The court also referenced Tedeschi v. Wagner College, which established that a university’s determination must be rationally based on the evidence and in substantial compliance with its own guidelines.
Key Terms for Better Understanding
- Code of Conduct: A set of rules outlining the responsibilities and proper practices for an individual or organization.
- Article 78: A proceeding used to appeal the decision of a New York State or local agency to the New York courts.
- Hearing Board: A panel that conducts hearings and makes determinations in disciplinary cases within an institution.
- Harassment: Aggressive pressure or intimidation, often involving repeated unwanted contact.
- No-contact order: A directive issued to prevent one individual from contacting another.
- Arbitrary and capricious: A standard of review used by courts to evaluate decisions made by administrative agencies, ensuring they are based on reason and evidence.
- Substantial compliance: Adherence to the essential requirements of a rule or guideline, even if there are minor deviations.
Article 78 Lawyer in New York
Conclusion
The case of Marita Hyman v. Cornell University highlights the importance of universities adhering to their own disciplinary procedures and the standards courts use to review such determinations. The court’s decision to uphold the university’s actions underscores the necessity for rational and evidence-based decision-making in disciplinary matters.