Suspended Student Fails at Challenges to Columbia University Disciplinary Process
The student attacked Columbia's hearing process, challenging the university, for instance, for allegedly not allowing him to have a lawyer or other representative be present and for not allowing him to present live witness testimony.
March 13, 2019 at 05:25 PM
4 minute read
Columbia University's decision to affirm a disciplinary hearing committee's suspension of a biophysics student for one semester after he allegedly forged an exam book was “rationally based and not arbitrary and capricious,” a state appeals court has ruled.
An Appellate Division, First Department panel also found that the university had not acted irrationally when it rejected as “not credible” then-student Sai Bondalapati's explanation for why he had marked up a physiology course test booklet in a certain way.
In the student's legal challenge, filed in 2016 as a petition in Manhattan Supreme Court, he made numerous claims, including some attacking Columbia's hearing process. The claims included the university allegedly not allowing him to have a lawyer or other representative be present and the university not allowing him to present live witness testimony.
His case was yet another legal challenge to a university's hearing and disciplinary process for students. And it arrived at a time when such challenges have been increasingly lodged and reported in the news. Campus sexual assault cases have made most of the headlines, but Bondalapati's challenge to the disciplinary procedure made some arguments that students accused of more serious infractions have made.
In the First Department's opinion issued Tuesday, the panel ruled in the university's favor on every point. It knocked back a host of legal challenges to the university's decision to suspend Bondalapati, including a “due process” challenge, arguments about the sufficiency of the record used by the university and arguments about whether Bondalapati's punishment was shocking or disproportionate. It also knocked down a hybrid Article 78 proceeding and plenary action challenge alleging defamation. Bondalapati's collection of legal challenges and claims were lodged against Columbia University, Columbia University in the City of New York, and a dean of Columbia College.
In 2016, Bondalapati was a Columbia College sophomore biophysics major who had transferred from the University of Virginia and who intended to go to medical school, according to court records. In the spring semester, while enrolled in a general physiology course, he sat for an exam but was displeased with the grade he received, the documents said. In the following weeks, he called multiple meetings with his professor, and at one meeting left behind a test booklet she had already re-graded and that he'd marked up in certain ways, according to court records.
The professor then accused him of academic dishonesty, court records say, and he subsequently appeared at a disciplinary hearing headed by two members of a student conduct committee.
In his Supreme Court filing, he petitioned to annul the university's 2016 determination affirming the hearing committee's suspension of him due to an academic dishonesty finding.
The unanimous panel, in affirming Supreme Court Justice's Barbara Jaffe's 2018 denial of the petition, wrote that Columbia's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, and it noted that Bondalapati had “ample opportunity at the hearing to defend his conduct and explain his actions.”
The panel of Justices Judith Gische, Barbara Kapnick, Troy Webber and Cynthia Kern also wrote that Columbia's “rejection of [Bondalapati's] explanation as not credible was not irrational,” and that “denial of petitioner's internal appeal also was not irrational.”
Columbia's “written policy provided for limited grounds for appeal, none of which availed petitioner,” the panel added.
Bondalapati's due process challenge was “misplaced,” the panel wrote, while adding that “a student at a private university is not afforded the 'full panoply' of due process rights,” citing in part Cavanagh v. Cathedral Preparatory Seminary.
The panel also wrote that Bondalapati's “arguments about the sufficiency of the record before the hearing committee or on the internal appeal are without merit,” and that “there is nothing shocking or disproportionate about the one-semester suspension imposed.”
The panel added that his “defamation claim was correctly dismissed because the subject statements were true … had not been published to any persons outside the university … and were protected by a qualified common interest privilege.”
Daniel Dugan, an associate at Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group in Manhattan, represented Bondalapati. Reached on Wednesday by phone, he declined to comment on the decision.
Susan Friedfel, a principal at Jackson Lewis who is based in White Plains represented Columbia University and related respondent-defendants. She could not be reached for comment.
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 read'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readLippman Study on Antisemitism at CUNY Weighs Free Speech, Unprotected Acts
'Illegal Conspiracy'?: EDNY Antitrust Class Action Challenges Publishers' 'Unpaid Peer Review Rule'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'We Should Be Pragmatic': Meet the Possible Next FTC Chair
- 2Bank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
- 3Jury That Convicted Ex-Sen. Robert Menendez Accidentally Saw Improper Evidence, Prosecutors Say
- 4Freshfields Hires DOJ Official, Squire Taps Paul Hastings Atty for US Antitrust Head
- 5Goodbye 'Yellow Freight' Road?
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