Bisimwa v. St. John Fisher Coll.
2021 NY Slip Op 02962 (2021)
Rule of Law:
A settlement agreement requiring a college to expunge a student's disciplinary record from documents made available to third parties is breached if the college discloses that history, even if the student later signs a general information release authorization. A claim for defamation by implication based on a truthful disclosure requires a rigorous showing that the author intended to convey a false and defamatory inference, which is not met by merely omitting potentially mitigating context.
Facts:
- Franck Bisimwa, a freshman at St. John Fisher College, was found responsible for sexual misconduct and assault following a student conduct hearing and was expelled.
- Bisimwa was subsequently prosecuted on criminal charges of rape related to the same incident, but a jury found him not guilty.
- Following his acquittal, Bisimwa and St. John Fisher College entered into a settlement agreement.
- The agreement stipulated that the College would expunge the notation of disciplinary action from Bisimwa's transcript and from any other College records made available to third parties.
- The agreement also permitted the College to retain its internal records of the disciplinary proceeding, which were to be treated as confidential.
- Bisimwa later applied to other universities and executed authorizations for St. John Fisher College to release his student information and records.
- In response to these authorizations, Terri L. Travaglini, an Assistant Dean at the College, disclosed the original findings of responsibility for sexual misconduct and the expulsion to the other schools.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Franck Bisimwa sued defendants St. John Fisher College and Terri L. Travaglini in the Supreme Court of Monroe County, a trial-level court in New York.
- The complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract and defamation, and sought punitive damages.
- Defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and based on documentary evidence.
- The trial court granted the motion in part but denied it as to the breach of contract claims against all defendants and the defamation claim based on a disclosure to one of the universities.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's partial denial of their motion to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, with Bisimwa appearing as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a college breach a settlement agreement requiring it to expunge disciplinary records from documents made available to third parties when, in response to the student's information release authorization, it discloses the underlying disciplinary finding to other educational institutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Memorandum Opinion)
Yes. A college breaches a settlement agreement under these circumstances because a specific contractual non-disclosure obligation is not automatically nullified by a subsequent general release authorization. The plain language of the settlement agreement, read as a whole, unambiguously prohibited the disclosure of the specific disciplinary action to third parties. The clause allowing the College to retain internal records does not grant a right to disclose them externally. The student's subsequent general authorization to release information does not, as a matter of law, constitute a waiver of his specific contractual non-disclosure rights; whether the student intended to waive his rights is a question of fact that cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss. However, the defamation by implication claim fails because the truthful disclosure of the College's disciplinary finding does not reasonably imply the student is a 'convicted rapist,' and the omission of mitigating context from the settlement agreement does not meet the rigorous standard of showing the College intended to convey a false inference. The court also dismissed the breach of contract claim against Dean Travaglini individually, as an agent for a disclosed principal is not personally liable on a contract they did not sign.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a heightened standard for defamation by implication claims in New York, extending the 'rigorous showing' requirement of authorial intent beyond media defendants to private actors. It also reinforces the legal principle that a waiver of contractual rights cannot be lightly presumed and must be intentional, providing significant protection to parties relying on specific non-disclosure and expungement agreements. The ruling ensures that boilerplate release forms do not inadvertently nullify carefully negotiated settlement terms, placing a clear burden on the disclosing party to honor its specific contractual promises.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Bisimwa v. St. John Fisher Coll. (2021)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"