Faculty of City University of New York Law School at Queens College v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 06 April 1989
• Citation: 149 A.D.2d 315,539 N.Y.S.2d 367
• Parties: , 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 858, 52 Ed. Law Rep. 1190 The FACULTY OF the CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL AT QUEENS COLLEGE: Barbara Bezdek, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, Homer La Rue et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph S. MURPHY, etc., Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 367

539 N.Y.S.2d 367

149 A.D.2d 315, 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 858,

52 Ed. Law Rep. 1190

The FACULTY OF the CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL AT QUEENS COLLEGE: Barbara Bezdek, et al Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants Homer La Rue et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph S. MURPHY, etc., Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

April 6, 1989.

J.E. Glen, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.

O.P. Sherwood, for defendant-appellant-respondent.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, ROSS, ROSENBERGER and WALLACH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered July 14, 1988, which granted the motion of plaintiffs-respondents-cross appellants for a preliminary injunction to the extent of directing defendant-appellant-cross respondent Joseph S. Murphy, Chancellor of the City University of New York, to transmit the tenure applications of plaintiffs-respondents Homer La Rue and Vanessa Merton to the Board of Trustees of the City University of New York for its consideration, and directing defendant to offer said plaintiffs continuation of their present, nontenured positions for a one year period, and which granted defendant Chancellor's cross motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the claims of all plaintiffs other than Homer La Rue and Vanessa Merton, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs-respondents La Rue and Merton arising under the federal and state civil rights laws, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant-appellant, Chancellor of the City University of New York ("CUNY"), challenges the injunctive relief granted to two CUNY Law School Professors whom he had refused to recommend to the CUNY Board of Trustees for reappointment with tenure. A cross appeal has been taken by members of the CUNY Law School faculty who were found by Supreme Court to lack standing in this law suit to contest the Chancellor's treatment of their two colleagues. The relevant facts, which are fully recited in Justice Greenfield's decision (140 Misc.2d 525, 531 N.Y.S.2d 665 [Supreme Court, New York County 1988] ), support the award of preliminary injunctive relief to respondents La Rue and Merton.

The issue here is whether the Chancellor of CUNY is vested with authority to deny tenure to candidates who have passed each stage of the approved tenure review process or whether that authority rests with the Board of Trustees. We note that we are not called upon to consider the substantive merits of respondents' tenure applications, but only to determine whether the Chancellor's actions were in accordance with CUNY's rules and procedures governing tenured appointmen (Gertler v. Goodgold, 107 A.D.2d 481, 486-487, 487 N.Y.S.2d 565 [1st Dept.1985], aff'd 66 N.Y.2d 946, 498 N.Y.S.2d 779, 489 N.E.2d 748). The CUNY Law School By-Laws and Internal Governance Plan set forth the standards applicable to candidates for tenured appointments to the Law School faculty and the prescribed process for tenure review. Both La Rue and Merton were found to have met the teaching and scholarship criteria by the Law School Tenure Review Committee, the Law School Personnel and Budget Committee, and the Dean of the Law School. Although the Joint Review Committee, comprising faculty from both the Law School and Queens College, also found that La Rue and Merton had met the criteria established for the law school, there was some concern that the law school's standards were less stringent than the tenure requirements established for the Queens College faculty. However, the by-laws applicable to the university as a whole state that the provisions of a governance plan for a particular school shall, in the event of conflict, prevail.

Pursuant to the Law School Governance Plan, the determination as to whether a candidate for tenure has met the teaching and scholarship standards rests with the law school's Personnel and Budget Committee and the Tenure Review Committee. Although the Joint Review Committee,...