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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT