Motzkin v. Trustees of Boston University

Decision Date05 August 1996
Docket NumberC.A. No. 95-10450-RCL.
CitationMotzkin v. Trustees of Boston University, 938 F.Supp. 983 (D. Mass. 1996)
PartiesAryeh MOTZKIN, Plaintiff, v. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Janis M. Berry, Roche, Carens & DeGiacomo, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Lawrence S. Elswit, Office of the General Counsel, Boston, MA, for Defendant.

LINDSAY, District Judge.

Report and recommendation accepted.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT(FILED ORIGINALLY AS A MOTION TO DISMISS)

(DOCKETNO. 6)

June 4, 1996

KAROL, United States Magistrate Judge.

In 1992, defendants, the Trustees of Boston University ("Trustees" or "BU"), entered into a contract with plaintiff, Aryeh Motzkin("Motzkin"), under which Motzkin would teach three courses per semester in BU's College of Liberal Arts ("CLA") during the academic years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96.By letter dated March 31, 1995, effective immediately, Motzkin was notified that the Trustees had voted to accept the recommendation of a specially appointed faculty committee that Motzkin's contract be terminated for cause.The committee's recommendation was based on its finding, following a several-day adjudicatory hearing, that Motzkin had sexually harassed students, sexually assaulted and harassed a faculty colleague, violated BU's Illegal Drugs and Alcohol Policy by serving alcohol to underage students, and made false reports to the hearing committee regarding the charges against him.Motzkin denies some of those charges, but he does not dispute that he is unfit to teach.To the contrary, he insists that, because of a psychological disorder from which he suffers that causes "disinhibition,"(Am.Compl., docketno. 16, ¶¶ 7-9), he lacks sufficient control, even with counseling and medication, to refrain from engaging in intolerable conduct of the very type in which the faculty hearing committee found he had engaged.Nonetheless, he commenced this lawsuit challenging his termination on grounds ranging from breach of contract to discrimination on the basis of disability.(Compl., docket no. 1)Then, after BU had filed its present motion, Motzkin amended his complaint to include, among other things, a claim that BU defamed him and invaded his right to privacy by filing certain confidential documents and leaking information to the press.(Am. Compl.)For reasons stated below, I recommend that all eight counts of Motzkin's amended complaint be dismissed.1

I.BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

Unless otherwise noted, the facts stated in this section are either undisputed or stated in the light most favorable to Motzkin.See, e.g., Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc.,895 F.2d 46, 48(1st Cir.1990).

A. Motzkin's Special Appointment

Motzkin was initially hired by BU in 1987 or 1988 to teach courses within the CLA's Core Curriculum and Department of Philosophy.(Am.Compl. ¶ 5;Salary History and 1989 Faculty Salary Recommendation Form, attached to Aff. Counsel Regarding Contract Records, docketno. 13, of 5/8/95.)He was given the untenured rank of Associate Professor.(1989 Faculty Salary Form.)The record is unclear whether he was on a tenure track for a period of time prior to 1992, but, in any event, he had not obtained tenure by the end of 1992.Moreover, he had made it clear by his words and conduct that his overriding interest was teaching — not research, writing, or publishing.Accordingly, by letter dated December 4, 1992(but dated November 7, 1992 on its second page), CLA Dean Dennis D. Berkey ("Berkey") offered Motzkin a special, three-year teaching appointment as a nontenured Associate Professor of the Humanities and Adjunct Associate Professor of Philosophy.(Def.'s Supplem.Mem.Supp.Mot. Dismiss ("Def.'s Supplem.Mem."), docketno. 21, Ex. 1.)For each semester through academic year 1995-96, Motzkin was to teach the equivalent of two courses within the Core Curriculum and one philosophy course within the Department of Philosophy.(Id.)As Berkey emphasized in his letter:

This appointment is extended in recognition of your strong contributions in teaching to the Core Curriculum.It is a special appointment, with primary emphasis on the teaching role.Therefore, in accepting this appointment you must agree to relinquish any claim for tenure status on the basis of the longevity of your service on the faculty of Boston University.

(Seeid.¶ 6(emphasis added).)Motzkin accepted this "special appointment" on December 9, 1992.(Id. at 2.)

Although Berkey did not, in his December 4 letter, specifically alert Motzkin to the fact that his appointment could be terminated early for cause, he referred to the Faculty Handbook (the "Handbook") as governing the issue of reappointment and the question whether Motzkin would be eligible for future tenure consideration.(Seeid.¶¶ 5, 7.)Both parties attached excerpts of the Handbook to their pleadings in this lawsuit and often referred to it as authoritative with respect to the issues in this case.This is not surprising, since the Handbook, by its terms, provides that the policies set forth in it "are applicable University-wide to all faculty employed by Boston University" and that "an individual's acceptance of employment at Boston University is sufficient to make the terms of the University's policies applicable without further notice or agreement."(Mem.Supp.Def.'s Mot. Dismiss Compl. ("Def.'s Mem."), docket no. 8, Ex. Cat 44.)On the basis of these statements, BU asserts, and Motzkin agrees, (Tr. of 7/13/95 Hr'g, docket no. 33, at 9, 64), that the policies and procedures set forth in the Handbook, including the ones discussed below dealing with early termination, are incorporated into Motzkin's contract.

The Handbook devotes an entire section to policies and procedures by which faculty members may be suspended or terminated on the basis of "gross neglect of duty or other applicable cause ... during the term of an appointment."(Handbookat 67-69.)Those particular policies and procedures were adopted December 4, 1990, which was approximately two years after Motzkin's initial appointment and two years before he accepted the appointment that is the subject of this lawsuit.(Id. at 67 n. *.)The Handbook sets forth an elaborate process that must be followed before a faculty member may be terminated for cause "during the term of an appointment."(Id. at 67-69.)The final step in that multi-stage process is described in the Faculty Handbook as follows:

8.Consideration by the Board of Trustees.The Board's review of the case shall be based on the record of the hearing conducted by special committee of five faculty members appointed for that purpose and any further briefs presented in writing by the principals and/or their representatives.The decision of the Board of Trustees shall be final.

It was pursuant to this process that the Trustees purported to terminate Motzkin's special appointment effective March 31, 1995.(Def.'s Mem.Ex.H.)

B.Allegations Against Motzkin

Complaints against Motzkin first surfaced during the 1991-92 academic year, when several female students reported that he was pressuring them to attend a party at his house.(Def.'s Mem.Ex. D: Statement of the Grounds for the Suspension or Termination of the Appointment of Associate Professor Aryeh L. Motzkin ("Statement of Grounds"), dated 1/95, ¶ 4(a).)Because the students were unwilling to file formal charges, the Chairman of the Department of Philosophy, Professor Charles Griswold, raised the subject with Motzkin informally and advised him to be careful regarding his conduct toward students.(Id.)

The following fall, a student in one of Motzkin's classes registered concern to Assistant Dean Brian Jorgensen about an incident in which Motzkin had approached her where she worked and invited her to lunch.(Id.¶ 4(b).)He addressed the matter with Motzkin, who gave assurances that he would avoid such conduct in the future.(Id.)

Concerns about Motzkin escalated shortly after September 11, 1993.On that date, Motzkin took an underage female student to dinner off campus, ostensibly to discuss the possibility of her doing some translation work for him.(Id.¶¶ 3(b), 7;Motzkin Aff., docketno. 27, Ex.A: letter from Motzkin to Berkey of 9/28/93, at 2-3.)It is undisputed that, during dinner, in violation of BU's Illegal Drugs and Alcohol Policy, Motzkin purchased the student some wine to accompany her meal.(Id. at 2.)According to the student (but denied by Motzkin), he also made suggestive remarks.(Id. at 2-3;Statement of Grounds¶ 3(b).)This incident prompted Berkey to issue a formal reprimand to Motzkin and a warning that "a future reoccurrence of this type of situation could result in more severe sanctions."(Am.Compl. ¶ 11;Statement of Grounds¶ 4(c)(quoting letter from Berkey to Motzkin of 10/18/93.))

In May 1994, Berkey received a memorandum from a female faculty member in which the faculty member alleged that, beginning in 1991, Motzkin had made repeated, unwanted advances toward her; had sexually assaulted her; and had frequently intimated that, in exchange for her favors, he would be willing to use his purported influence with senior administration officials to help her get tenure.(Def.'s Mem.Ex.D: Statement of Additional Grounds for the Suspension or Termination of the Appointment of Associate Professor Aryeh L. Motzkin ("Statement of Additional Grounds")¶¶ 8-15.)The faculty member declined to file a formal complaint at that time, however.(Id.¶ 16.)

In the summer of 1994, Berkey met with Motzkin and admonished him not to dine alone with female students away from campus.(Statement of Grounds¶ 4(d).)He also told him that he was in a "strike-two situation," that his current contract would not be renewed, that he should start looking for another position, and that any additional misconduct would result in his termination.(Id.)Despite this explicit warning, Motzkin promptly took another...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
21 cases
  • Logie v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., Civil No. 17-10949-PBS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • July 12, 2018
    ...2010) (cognizable); Downs v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. , 13 F.Supp.2d 130, 134–36 (D. Mass. 1998) (cognizable); Motzkin v. Trs. of Boston Univ. , 938 F.Supp. 983, 996 (D. Mass. 1996) (not cognizable). Torres v. Junto De Gobierno De Servicio De Emergencia , 91 F.Supp.3d 243, 252–54 (D.P.R. 201......
  • Conners v. Maine Medical Center, Civ. 98-273-P-C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • March 3, 1999
    ...1. Defendants also rely on the statement made by the United States District Court of Massachusetts in Motzkin v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 938 F.Supp. 983, 996 (D.Mass.1996) (Karol, M.J.), stating that "the legislative intent is so clear from the language of Titles I and III that one need n......
  • Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 1, 1997
    ...analyzed under Title I of the ADA), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1822, 137 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1997); Motzkin v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 938 F.Supp. 983, 996 (D.Mass.1996)(Title III did not apply to professor's employment discrimination claim against a university; "The legislative inte......
  • Menkowitz v. Pottstown Memorial Medical Center
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 24, 1998
    ...601, 612 (3d Cir.1998); Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1014 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc); Motzkin v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 938 F.Supp. 983, 996 (D.Mass.1996). Similarly, the House Report states that Title I "sets forth prohibitions against discrimination on the basis o......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles