Danso v. University of Connecticut

• Decision Date: 17 January 2007
• Docket Number: No. CV-06 4006110S.,CV-06 4006110S.
• Citation: 50 Conn.Sup. 256,919 A.2d 1100
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Felix DANSO v. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT et al.

919 A.2d 1100

50 Conn.Sup. 256

Felix DANSO v. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT et al.

No. CV-06 4006110S.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland.

January 17, 2007.

James Wing, Jr., Hartford, for the plaintiff.

Michael Sullivan, Hartford, for the defendant.

SFERRAZZA, J.

The plaintiff, Felix Danso, applies for a temporary injunction requiring the defendant, the University of Connecticut (UCONN), to reinstate the plaintiff as a full-time student, in good standing, at the university. On January 5, 2007, the court held an evidentiary hearing on this application and finds the following facts.

Donta Johnson is a community standards specialist employed by UCONN. His duties include oversight of controversies arising under the student code, which is a set of rules and procedures published in a handbook and disseminated to UCONN students. Within the code are standards of conduct for students and disciplinary protocols for handling alleged breaches of these standards.

On March 13, 2006, Johnson received a complaint from Professor Kristen Kimball regarding the plaintiff's behavior with respect to another student, Lisa Ramondetta. On that date, the plaintiff was a junior at the university.

Professor Kimball was disturbed by an email that the plaintiff had sent her. The email revealed information about the personal life of Ramondetta and evinced excessive interest on the part of the plaintiff in Ramondetta's activities. The email implored Professor Kimball to intervene to protect Ramondetta from supposed dangers of her seeing certain male students. Among other things, the email stated:

"I know Lisa will hate me for this but I can live with it but I can't live with the fact that I know these [guys'] intentions and [no one] doing anything about it. She thinks I'm trying to control her but I'm not.

"I don't mind if she hates me forever because I'm getting in her life. In fact I'll love it but I just can't let her go through stuff like this for her to be hurt."

The plaintiff had made contact initially with Ramondetta in a student chat room by using a false name and providing her with other fabricated biographical information. Eventually, Ramondetta learned of the plaintiff's true identity. Once revealed, the plaintiff made several attempts to date her, however, Ramondetta steadfastly refused these overtures. The plaintiff continued to pursue her by appearing, uninvited, at her dormitory room and by attempting to shower her with gifts. Ramondetta rebuffed the plaintiffs attention and made it clear that she wanted nothing to do with him.

Upon receipt of Professor Kimball's complaint, Johnson interviewed her, Ramondetta, and the plaintiff. At a March 14, 2006 meeting with the plaintiff, Johnson explained his own role, the nature of the complaint, and Ramondetta's desire that the plaintiff refrain from trying to communicate with her in any fashion. Johnson also gave the plaintiff a "no-contact" letter which informed the plaintiff that his past actions constituted "harassment, intimidation, [and] disrespectful behavior" regarding Ramondetta. Further, the no-contact letter directed the plaintiff "to have absolutely no contact either directly or indirectly (through other people, electronic means or otherwise)." The no-contact letter also forbade the plaintiff from visiting her dormitory building. Lastly, the letter warns the plaintiff that any violation of the no-contact letter could result in suspension or expulsion.

Ramondetta was satisfied with this action by Johnson and declined to press the charges against the plaintiff any further.

Johnson met again with the plaintiff a few days later. At this meeting, Johnson explained the disciplinary routes available with respect to allegations of student misconduct. Johnson referred the plaintiff to a mental health counselor. At that time, the plaintiff complained that Ramondetta was falsely linking computer screen names to the plaintiff. He presented Johnson with a stack of emails which the plaintiff claimed were fraudulently ascribed to him. Johnson noted that none of the emails was dated after the no-contact letter. The plaintiff wanted Johnson to arrange mediation between the plaintiff and Ramondetta. Johnson was willing to mediate, but Ramondetta declined to participate.

On April 26, 2006, Ramondetta reported to Johnson that she learned from a friend, Kevin Burns, that the plaintiff, on April 25, 2006, approached Burns inquiring about Ramondetta's activities. The plaintiff offered to pay Burns to spy on Ramondetta.

On April 26, 2006, Johnson wrote to the plaintiff and scheduled an administrative conference with him for May 3, 2006. At the conference, Johnson advised the plaintiff of the new allegations, characterized the purported conduct as a violation of the no-contact letter, and as being a form of stalking, intimidation, and threatening behavior. Johnson gave the plaintiff a copy of the report and informed him that the new charges would have to be resolved either by a voluntary agreement or by a "judicial" hearing.

The plaintiff accepted no voluntary resolution, and he was notified on May 23, 2006, that a disciplinary hearing would occur on May 30, 2006. The notification letter stated that the charges against him stemmed from an April 26, 2006 incident. Additional details regarding this notification letter will be discussed later in this memorandum of decision.

Initially, the hearing had been scheduled for the time right after final exams had ended, which was on May 8, 2006. The plaintiff, however, requested that the hearing be postponed because a family member was under-going surgery. This request was granted. The plaintiff never complained that the May 30 hearing date would hamper his ability to produce witnesses in his defense.

The student code handbook permits both a complaining and accused student to have a "support person" with them at the disciplinary hearing. The support person can be any nondisruptive person, including an attorney. The student may consult with the support person, but the support person does not participate by questioning witnesses or making argument. The plaintiff wanted a Ms. Lewis to act as his support person, but her retirement on May 30, 2006, precluded this from happening. The plaintiff chose no other support person to accompany him at the hearing.

The hearing was conducted by the UCONN director of community standards, Catherine Cocks. Cocks was also Danta Johnson's immediate supervisor. Part IV:C of the student code handbook permits the hearing to occur before a hearing board or before an administrative officer alone, as occurred in the present case.

At the hearing, both the plaintiff and Romendetta were allowed to make opening and closing arguments, to call witnesses on their behalf, to be present throughout the proceeding and to pose relevant questions to witnesses. The code permits written statements of appearing or nonappearing witnesses to be introduced. The hearing was recorded.

Under Parts III:16 and IV.D.K. of the student code, the accused student is presumed "not responsible" until the facts presented at the hearing prove responsibility for the charged misbehavior by clear and convincing evidence. Hearing official Cocks determined that the evidence before her proved, clearly and convincingly, that the plaintiff was obsessed with Ramondetta. That he pursued her relentlessly despite her repeated protests, that he stalked her and that his behavior caused her to be intimidated and suffer emotionally.

The hearing officer then conducted a sanction phase to determine what disciplinary action ought to be taken. Again, the disputants were allowed to be present, introduce evidence, and argue their positions. Cocks suspended the plaintiff as a UCONN student from May 15, 2006 until August 15, 2007. The suspension prevents the plaintiff from engaging in any student activities and from earning any academic credit. Also, the plaintiff must apply for readmission once the suspension expires, and this application will require him to produce proof of appropriate counseling. Upon readmission, the plaintiff will be on probation for one year and cannot live on campus during probation.

Part IV:F of the student code provides an internal appeal process. Under Part IV:F 2, the appeal is limited to reviewing the decision of the hearing official for significant, procedural error and consideration of newly discovered evidence. The plaintiff took an appeal, and on June 3, 2006, vice president of student affairs, John Saddlemire, issued his decision denying the appeal.

I

As a threshold matter, the court must identify its role in deciding this application for a temporary injunction. This litigation is not an administrative appeal of the university's decision to suspend the plaintiff. Also, neither party has identified any statutory or regulatory procedure permitting direct judicial review of a disciplinary decision at a state college.

"A temporary injunction is a preliminary order of court, granted at the outset or during the pendency of an action, forbidding the performance of the threatened acts described . . . until the rights of the parties . . . shall have been finally determined by the court." Deming v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 650, 659, 84 A. 116 (1912). The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo until the rights of the various parties can be sorted out, after a hearing on the merits. Clinton v. Middlesex Assurance Co., 37 Conn.App. 269, 270, 655 A.2d 814 (1995).

In order for the court to issue a temporary injunction, the applicant must establish (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits at a final hearing; (2) irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted; and (3) no adequate remedy at law. Covenant Radio Corp. v. Ten Eighty Corp., 35 Conn.Supp. 1, 3, 390 A.2d 949 (1977). If irreparable injury is demonstrated, the trial court ought to issue the temporary injunction,...