ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

October 26, 2023

A college student disciplinary hearing is not a quasi-judicial proceeding absent certain procedural safeguards

Plaintiff appealed a partial final judgment by a United States District Court judge dismissing his claims alleging "defamation and tortious interference with contract" brought against Yale University and certain named parties [University]. University had accused Plaintiff, of sexual assaulting another student, "Jane Doe" [Doe], while both were students at Yale.

Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in finding:

1. University had absolute quasi-judicial immunity for statements made at a University disciplinary hearing that resulted in Plaintiff’s expulsion from Yale; and 

2. Plaintiff’s tortious interference claims were untimely.

In its preliminary review, the Second Circuit said it was unable to determine whether the Connecticut Supreme Court [Connecticut] would recognize the Yale disciplinary hearing at issue as a quasi-judicial proceeding, supporting University's claim of absolute immunity in the action brought by Plaintiff. Accordingly, it certified questions pertinent to that issue to Connecticut.

Connecticut responded, indicating that absolute immunity could not be claimed by  University in Plaintiff's action because the Yale disciplinary hearing at issue was not a quasi-judicial proceeding. Connecticut explained the Yale disciplinary hearing lacked certain procedural safeguards such as an oath requirement, the ability to call witnesses, an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, meaningful assistance of counsel, and an adequate record for appeal, all typically associated with judicial proceedings.

Further, while Connecticut recognized the possibility for participants in such a hearing to be shielded by qualified immunity, Connecticut concluded the "University is not presently entitled to dismissal on that ground because [Plaintiff’s] complaint sufficiently pleads the malice necessary to defeat such immunity."

Accordingly, the Second Circuit:

1. Affirmed, in part, so much of the district court's judgment that dismissed as untimely Plaintiff’s tortious interference claim based on Doe’s 2015 statements; and

2. Vacated, in part, so much of the district court's judgment that dismissed Plaintiff's action under color of absolute immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s defamation and tortious interference claims based on Doe’s 2018 statements.

The Second Circuit then remanded the matter to the district court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.

 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com