High Court to Weigh Whether SUNY Had 'Substantial Evidence' to Expel Student After Alleged Sexual Assault
The case started well before the public reckoning of several government officials and celebrities accused of sexual harassment and assault in the #MeToo era.
September 11, 2018 at 02:02 PM
6 minute read
The New York Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments later this week in a case of alleged sexual assault that has blurred the lines on what qualifies as consent between students.
The case involves two persons who were students at the State University of New York at Potsdam.
Benjamin Haug was accused of sexual assault and expelled from SUNY Potsdam in 2014. The Appellate Division, Third Department annulled his expulsion, saying the school's decision was not supported by “substantial evidence.”
Lloyd Grandy from The Carlisle Law Firm P.C. in Ogdensburg, New York, represented Haug. SUNY Potsdam was represented by New York state Assistant Solicitor General Brian Ginsberg.
There was a set of facts on which Haug and the accuser agreed.
They were both students at SUNY Potsdam who had known each other in high school. He was returning to his dorm from a night of drinking when he ran into the alleged victim. She invited him up to her dorm room, where they had sex. Their stories differ from there.
The accuser told police after the encounter that she “froze up” as they began to have sex and did not verbally or physically consent. She said she had removed her shirt but said Haug removed her pants without asking permission, according to the Appellate Division decision.
She initially did not give police the identity of her alleged assailant and did not consent to a sexual assault examination, but an anonymous tip led authorities to Haug. He was suspended for the rest of the semester following a disciplinary hearing and was ordered to complete an alcohol treatment program.
Haug appealed the decision to the SUNY Appellate Board. The board not only affirmed the decision from the disciplinary hearing but also increased his penalty from suspension to outright expulsion. According to an opinion by Appellate Division, Third Department, that decision was made by Kristin Esterberg, president of SUNY Potsdam.
In a split 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division said SUNY did not have “substantial evidence” to expel Haug based on the definition of consent spelled out in the university's student code of conduct. According to that definition, consent cannot be inferred from silence and must flow from “spoken words or behavior that indicates, without doubt to either party, a mutual agreement to” proceed.
The alleged victim of the assault did not testify at the disciplinary hearing, but her account was detailed in written notes prepared by the college's director of student conduct and community standards. The notes did not give much detail beyond what was already known.
The Appellate Division said in its decision that the account of what happened does not contradict the college's definition of consent.
“It is not clear to us that a reasonable person could find from these hearsay accounts an absence of 'behavior that indicate[d], without doubt to either party, a mutual agreement to participate in sexual intercourse,' as to do so would require overlooking the complainant's admission that she removed her shirt when sex was suggested,” the majority said.
According to the majority opinion, Haug also said at the hearing that he had asked the accuser if she had any condoms. Haug said that she responded in the negative, but that she had said it was “fine.” Haug also said after they had sex that the alleged victim asked him if he “had fun,” according to the decision.
“Simply put, [Haug's] testimony seriously controverted the hearsay evidence indicating that the complainant had not given affirmative consent to sexual relations and, as a result, that hearsay proof did not constitute substantial evidence to support the determination,” the majority said.
The three members of the Third Department panel who rejected the SUNY Appellate Board's decision were Justice Eugene Devine, who wrote the opinion, and Justices Sharon Aarons and Karen Peters.
Justice Christine Clark wrote the dissent, which Justice Michael Lynch joined.
The three female justices serving on the panel split 2-1 against the SUNY Appellate Board's decision backing the expulsion of Haug. The two male justices were also divided.
Clark wrote that Haug's testimony showed he was even unsure whether the alleged victim had consented to have sex with him. According to the dissent, Haug testified that he told the alleged victim he was “worried” and “didn't know if she had reported [him]” after a campus-wide rape alert went out.
Clark also said that Haug testified to consuming a “ridiculous” amount of alcohol before having sex with the alleged victim and that he conceded he was “unable to decide what was smart.”
She also wrote that the majority's concern over Haug's expulsion was unfounded because Esterberg could have just as easily enforced a stricter penalty even if the Appellate Board had maintained a suspension.
One interesting disagreement between the justices centered around Haug's reputation and future job prospects. The majority wrote that it had considered “the significant impacts that the determination could have upon [Haug's] reputation as well as his educational and job prospects.”
Clark wrote that such matters should not be factored into the decision, since it was primarily about the procedural arguments of the situation.
The incident that led to the legal action took place well before the public reckoning of several government officials and celebrities accused of sexual harassment and assault in the #MeToo era. Haug was a freshman at SUNY Potsdam in 2014, more than three years before the #MeToo movement gained widespread attention through social media following accusations of sexual misconduct against film mogul Harvey Weinstein.
A phone message left with Grandy's law office was not immediately returned.
Court papers, aside from the Appellate Division opinions, were sealed.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readSyracuse Courtroom Dedicated to Trailblazing City Court Judge Langston McKinney
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250