ILNews

COA: University should get summary judgment

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the trustees of Indiana University, finding the trial court erred when it denied summary judgment for the school and concluded a provision in an agreement between the school and a fired professor was ambiguous.

In the interlocutory appeal of Trustees of Indiana University v. H. Daniel Cohen,  No. 20A03-0812-CV-590, H. Daniel Cohen was hired as a physics professor with tenure and as chancellor of Indiana University - South Bend, but agreed to resign as chancellor following sexual harassment allegations. Following a sabbatical, Cohen and the university entered into an agreement that allowed him to continue teaching "with tenure with the rights and responsibilities attendant to that position." Another paragraph in the agreement stated he would be dismissed if any future proven act of sexual harassment or retaliation by Cohen occurred.

Student J.G. complained Cohen discriminated against her based on gender and religion, and also complained of sexual harassment and retaliation. Other students reported Cohen was demeaning and condescending and often swore in class. Cohen walked by a room where J.G. was taking a math test and made lingering eye contact with her; she became distraught and later filed a complaint alleging retaliation.

The school's Affirmative Action Office investigated and determined he violated school policy on sexual harassment. Cohen was dismissed in August 2001. He filed a complaint in 2003 alleging IUSB breached its agreement by terminating his employment without reason.

The Court of Appeals evaluated paragraphs three and 10 of the agreement between IUSB and Cohen to determine if paragraph three was ambiguous regarding whether the rights and responsibilities attendant to the position to which the agreement refers are those in the school's constitutions and handbooks. The trial court ruled the agreement was ambiguous on this point.

The Court of Appeals ruled the language "rights and responsibilities attendant to" the position of tenured professor doesn't in any way limit Cohen's responsibilities under the school's faculty handbooks, wrote Judge Elaine Brown.

"The clause at issue in Paragraph 3 reveals the parties' intent that Cohen be responsible for fulfilling those obligations which he would have been required to fulfill had he been a professor at the University whether or not he entered into the Agreement," she wrote.

His responsibilities included those all professors had to follow and the designated evidence supports this conclusion. Cohen even testified that the clause in question meant all things stated in the handbooks regarding rights and responsibilities.

Because the agreement allowed the school to fire Cohen for violations of the Code of Ethics as set forth in the handbooks, the university didn't breach the agreement by firing Cohen on that basis and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, wrote Judge Brown. The case is remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of IU.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT