Maas v. Cornell University
699 N.Y.S.2d 716, 721 N.E.2d 966, 94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private university's internal policies and procedures for handling employee disciplinary matters do not, by themselves, create an implied-in-fact contract that is enforceable through a plenary breach of contract action. The proper vehicle for judicial review of such administrative decisions is a CPLR article 78 proceeding.
Facts:
- James Maas was a tenured psychology professor at Cornell University.
- In 1994, four students filed sexual harassment accusations against Maas.
- Cornell University investigated the complaints using its pre-established internal procedures for handling such accusations against faculty members.
- Following hearings, the University's Professional Ethics Committee found that Maas's behavior constituted sexual harassment.
- The committee recommended sanctions, including conditions on his conduct and consideration of the finding in future pay or promotion decisions.
- The Dean of the College upheld the committee's determination.
- Maas's subsequent administrative appeal to the University Provost was rejected, though he remained a tenured faculty member.
Procedural Posture:
- James Maas filed a plenary action against Cornell University in New York Supreme Court (the trial court), alleging breach of contract and other causes of action.
- Cornell moved to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, to convert it into a CPLR article 78 proceeding.
- Maas opposed the conversion into an article 78 proceeding.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the breach of contract claim but allowed two negligence claims to survive.
- On an initial appeal by Maas (appellant), the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the dismissal of the contract claim.
- Upon remittal to the Supreme Court, the court granted summary judgment to Cornell (defendant) on the remaining negligence claims, dismissing the entire case.
- Maas (appellant) appealed again to the Appellate Division, which unanimously affirmed the final dismissal and rejected his new request to convert the case into an article 78 proceeding.
- The Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court) granted Maas leave to appeal.
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 private university's internal code of procedure for handling sexual harassment accusations create an implied-in-fact contract with a tenured professor, allowing the professor to bring a plenary breach of contract lawsuit for the university's alleged failure to follow those procedures?
Opinions:
Majority - Bellacosa, J.
No. A private university's internal procedural guidelines do not form the basis of an implied contract that can be remedied through a breach of contract action. The court reasoned that judicial bodies should exercise great restraint when intervening in the internal affairs of academic institutions, as these institutions possess specialized judgment better suited for making decisions on such matters. The appropriate channel for seeking judicial review of a university's administrative actions is a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which ensures the integrity of the institution is maintained while protecting individual rights. Maas failed to demonstrate the necessary elements for an implied contract, such as mutual assent or detrimental reliance on the university's procedures when he accepted employment. The university's handbook was informational in nature and included a provision allowing the university to alter it unilaterally, which is inconsistent with the formation of a binding contract.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of judicial deference to the internal governance of private universities in New York. It establishes that internal procedural handbooks are not presumptively contracts, thereby protecting educational institutions from plenary breach of contract lawsuits over administrative decisions. The ruling channels faculty and student grievances concerning procedural fairness into the more limited and deferential CPLR article 78 proceeding. This precedent significantly raises the bar for plaintiffs seeking to frame such disputes as contract claims, requiring them to prove specific elements like mutual assent and detrimental reliance, rather than just pointing to the existence of a handbook.
