Okafor v. Yale University, No. CV 98-0410320 (CT 6/25/2004)

• Decision Date: 25 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. CV 98-0410320,CV 98-0410320
• Citation: Okafor v. Yale University, No. CV 98-0410320 (CT 6/25/2004) (Conn. 2004)
• Parties: Ifeoma Okafor v. Yale University et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

Ifeoma Okafor v. Yale University et al.

No. CV 98-0410320

Superior Court of Connecticut

Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven

June 25, 2004

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CORRADINO, JUDGE.

In this case a student was accused of cheating on an exam in her sophomore year.

The university investigated the matter and the plaintiff contested the charge of cheating. She requested a hearing and one was held at which she was assisted by an advisor. The committee responsible for reviewing the matter found the charge to be true and suspended the plaintiff for two semesters. The university has regulations governing how these matters are handled. An amended complaint in several counts has been filed which appear to allege breach of contract, misrepresentation, either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, a claim that the regulations governing student discipline were inadequate and unconscionable, and a claim that the plaintiff did not have adequate and effective representation before the so-called Executive Committee that reviewed this matter. The defendant university has now filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that all claims against it should be dismissed.

The standards to be applied in deciding a motion for summary judgment are well known. If there is a genuine issue of disputed fact the court should not decide it since litigants have a constitutional right to a trial. On the other hand if there is no disputed issue of material fact and the matter can thus be decided as a question of law then the court should decide the motion, if warranted, against the non-moving party, here the plaintiff. Parties have a right not to be burdened with expense and difficulties presented by contesting unmerited litigation.

The court will try to set forth the facts. The plaintiff does not appear to contest the facts set forth in the defendant's brief which it has characterized as undisputed so the court will in some measure paraphrase and in some instances quote directly from that portion of the defendant's brief. The court will also refer to the plaintiff's affidavit attached to its opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff was suspended in January of 1998 when she was a sophomore. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was governed by Yale's Undergraduate Regulations which the plaintiff received when she arrived at the school. The regulations describe the procedure involved when issues such as suspension and dismissal from the university are presented. Under the regulations when, for example, a student is accused of cheating on an exam the matter is heard by the Executive Committee. The committee is composed of tenured and non-tenured faculty, three undergraduates, and the dean of the college or a designated representative of the dean. There are three non-voting members including a "fact finder." The regulations say the following regarding the fact finder's role and a fact finder was appointed here:

The Factfinder shall be responsible for gathering the information in an impartial and thorough manner. The Factfinder is not to be regarded as a prosecutor and is specifically charged to be alert to information that may exonerate a student. The Factfinder shall have the responsibility to interview students, faculty, and other persons who he or she may reasonably believe have information relevant to the business of the Committee. All members of the Yale community should recognize their responsibility to cooperate fully and truthfully with the Factfinder. Throughout the Factfinder's investigation, however, the student has the right to remain silent. The Factfinder and the Committee are not to draw a negative inference from the student's silence, but the student by that silence forfeits an opportunity to ensure that the Factfinder obtains all relevant information. Normally, it is at the request of the Chairman that the Factfinder will undertake an investigation. The student involved in the complaint may also request the Factfinder to pursue particular information; the Factfinder shall consider seriously any such request but the decision of how to proceed is the responsibility of the Factfinder.

The Factfinder is to make a written report and it is turned over to the Chairman of the Executive Committee. A coordinating group reviews complaints of academic dishonesty and determines if the matter should be sent to the Executive Committee and if the fact finder should conduct an investigation as just described. If either of these courses of action is taken the student is informed of it and also of the alleged violation of the regulation being looked into by the committee. At that point the student has the right to choose an adviser. The adviser is a member of the Yale community such as a dean, faculty member, coach, etc. The regulations state the adviser is not an "advocate" but rather "a source of personal and moral support." He or she aides the student in appearing before the Executive Committee, can accompany the student to the hearing on the complaint and counsel the student and "unobtrusively suggest questions." The chairman of the committee prepares for it a written statement of the alleged infraction to which is attached "any statement prepared by the fact finder and copies of all other relevant documents. These materials should be made available to the student no less than seven days prior to the committee meeting, except when the student requests that less time be allowed to elapse prior to a scheduled meeting." These materials are also made available to the adviser. The student can make a written response to the materials at least forty-eight hours prior to the meeting.

A meeting is then held with the student for the purpose of addressing the complaint unless the student requests a disposition without a formal hearing. At the formal hearing a student may make a statement and the committee or the student can ask the fact finder to explain any report he/she has made. The regulations state the following regarding the nature and conduct of the hearing before the Executive Committee:

The Coordinating Group may arrange for the appearance of witnesses. If it does so, their names shall be made available to the student no less than forty-eight hours before the meeting. If the complaint is one of academic dishonesty, the faculty member may request from the Chairman permission to make a brief explanatory statement to the Committee in the presence of the student. The Coordinating Group shall assure that any witnesses providing expert information are disinterested parties. The student may also present a reasonable number of witnesses, whose names shall likewise be submitted to the Chairman forty-eight hours before the meeting, to provide information to the Committee about the details of the complaint or about his or her character.

The student and the members of the Committee may address relevant questions to the witnesses. All questions addressed to witnesses shall be so addressed with the permission of the Chairman, who shall have the right to rule questions irrelevant or out of order. The student may also request that the Chairman ask relevant questions about certain subjects on behalf of the student. The Chairman may grant this request if, in the Chairman's judgment, the student is having difficulty asking questions for himself or herself.

There is no "immunity" for testimony by witnesses; a statement by a witness concerning a violation of the Undergraduate Regulations by the witness or by another student may be used as the basis for a separate complaint against the witness or the other student.

The Chairman may grant a brief recess during the meeting, at the student's request, to allow the student to consult with the Adviser or to allow the student to compose himself or herself.

If during the meeting any voting member of the Committee, or the Chairman, believes additional information not immediately available is necessary to reach a decision, the consideration of the complaint may be postponed by majority vote of the Committee or by the Chairman until the Factfinder has prepared a report on the matter.

The student may make a concluding statement of reasonable length after all witnesses have been heard and all information has been presented. With the permission of the student, the student's Adviser may also make a concluding statement or reasonable length to the Committee.

Throughout the meeting the student has the right to remain silent. The Committee is not to draw a negative inference from the student's silence, but the student by that silence forfeits an opportunity to present his or her side of the matter.

The regulations provide for a committee of review composed of three people, two faculty members appointed by the university president and a student selected by these members. A student given a penalty by the Executive Committee or the Dean of Yale College can file written complaints about that committee's action. The review committee can ask the Executive Committee to reconsider its actions but the latter is not required to do so; however, upon reconsideration it cannot impose a more serious penalty than that originally imposed.

With these regulations as the context of further discussion the court will quote from the defendant's brief the facts underlying the disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff. On November 7, 1997, the plaintiff took a chemistry exam. The teaching assistant monitoring the exam "witnessed the plaintiff appearing to copy answers from the exam of a student seated diagonally in front of her. The teaching assistant informed Professor Frederick Ziegler, Okafor's chemistry professor, who then reviewed her exam and compared it to that of the individual from whom she appeared to be copying answers. Based on the unusually similar answers (sometimes even identical—but...