JAMES MAAS, APPELLANT, v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, RESPONDENT.
94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999).
November 23, 1999
3 No. 179
(99 NY Int. 0157)
Decided November 23, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
David A. Stoll, for appellant.
Nelson E. Roth, for respondent.
BELLACOSA, J.:
The overriding issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff, Professor
James Maas, may assert a plenary breach ofcontract action against
defendant University, his employer. The lawsuit is premised on the
University's alleged failure to follow the procedures it had
promulgated and used for the resolution of sexual harassment claims
brought by four students against their teacher, Maas. We agree with
the courts below that the action does not lie, and that Maas is not
otherwise entitled to any judicial relief ( see also, Matter of Stoll
v University, ___ NY2d ___ (decided today)).
I.
Maas is a tenured psychology professor in University's College of Arts
and Sciences. In 1994, four students filed sexual harassment
accusations against him. The complaints were processed and reviewed
under internal, departmental University protocols, prescribed and
approved in 1991 by the College of Arts and Sciences Faculty; the
ordinances were entitled "Procedures to Handle Accusations of Sexual
Harassment against Faculty Members of University's College of Arts and
Sciences."
Following an investigative finding of merit by the College's Senior
Sexual Harassment Counselor, the Professional Ethics Committee held
five days of hearings. It then found unanimously that Maas had
repeatedly behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately in his
relationships with the complainants, and that his behavior constituted
SNIPPETS:
The overriding issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff, Professor James Maas, may assert a
The lawsuit is premised on the University's alleged failure to follow the procedures it had
We agree with the courts below that the action does not lie, and that Maas is not otherwise
Maas is a tenured psychology professor in University's College of Arts and Sciences.
The complaints were processed and reviewed under internal, departmental University protocols,
Maas then sued, alleging eight causes of action, including unlawful adoption of procedures,
The University moved to dismiss all causes of action and, alternatively, to convert the
Maas opposed the procedural conversion and maintained that he had viable grounds to pursue
The court stated that none of the allegations in the complaint specifies the terms of the
It concluded that, liberally construing the complaint, the pleading fails to allege a
The Appellate Division did not address Maas' request for Article 78 conversion at that stage
This Court granted Maas leave to appeal, and we now affirm in all respects.
However, "allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly
Without reference to any express contractual source, Maas contends that the University's
In assessing this employment relationship between the academic institution and its faculty
This Court's case law reflects the policy that the administrative decisions of educational
To the extent his arguments may be construed as urging that an implied-in-fact agreement may
When a complaint which merely "recites a litany of academic and administrative grievances
A "anifestation of mutual assent to an exchange requires that each party either make a
While handbooks generally contain information concerning rights and responsibilities, "the
Thus, under these guidelines, we are not persuaded that any basis has been presented to
|
