Just in: In long-awaited ruling (oral arg was last summer), First Circuit (mostly) sides with accused student in @BostonCollege lawsuit, vacates district court's ruling siding w/BC on breach of contract grounds: 
CA1: Given record of apparent improper intervention by dean in the disciplinary process (which had effect of setting aside what would have been finding of not guilty), district court was wrong to grant summary judgment to BC:
During oral argument, panel seemed disinclined to consider fairness Q. But raise it in opinion in key passage:
Rather cutting passage from CA1:
"Reasonable for a student to expect that a basic fairness guarantee excludes having an associate Dean of Students request Board members to give special treatment
to the prime alternative culprit."
"Reasonable for a student to expect that a basic fairness guarantee excludes having an associate Dean of Students request Board members to give special treatment
to the prime alternative culprit."
CA1 also says that lawsuit can proceed on basic fairness claim, b/c of same problems w/interference by administrators in the adjudication:
TIX section of ruling, however, is significant retreat from recent rulings by CA6 in Miami, or district courts in Marymount, Johnson & Wales:
Some of the TIX section, however, relies on facts of case: that was at summary judgment rather than MTD, that BC had found one-third of accused (who were all males) not guilty over 10-yr period.
CA1 also adopts argument that DCL's bias in favor of accusers doesn't equal gender bias.
Full ruling, from Judge Torruella, is here:
media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/1…
Good on breach of contract; odd on TIX. The other two judges on panel, especially, Judge Selya, seemed far more poorly disposed to BC in oral argument. So something of a compromise opinion?
media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/1…
Good on breach of contract; odd on TIX. The other two judges on panel, especially, Judge Selya, seemed far more poorly disposed to BC in oral argument. So something of a compromise opinion?
