157 A.D.3d 1072
N.Y. App. Div.2018Background
- Petitioner Matthew Jacobson (student) had sexual intercourse with a fellow student multiple times on October 31, 2015; the other student later reported a sexual assault to SUNY Plattsburgh.
- The Title IX Coordinator, Butterfly Blaise, interviewed both parties and prepared summaries; Blaise filed charges and acted as the complainant at the conduct hearing.
- Jacobson was charged under SUNY's Student Conduct Manual for "initiating sexual intercourse three different times without establishing affirmative consent," found responsible by the Student Conduct Board, and dismissed; the Judicial Appeal Board upheld the outcome.
- Jacobson challenged the process in an Article 78 proceeding, arguing denial of due process (insufficient notice/evidence and no opportunity to cross-examine the reporting student), misapplication/misinstruction on the definition of affirmative consent and initiation, and insufficient evidence.
- The court applied the Enough is Enough Law (Education Law article 129-B) affirmative-consent standard, noted errors in Blaise’s explanations to the Board about consent and initiation, and analyzed whether procedural protections satisfied due process.
Issues
| Issue | Jacobson's Argument | SUNY's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice and ability to defend | Jacobson: did not get evidence packet until hearing and lacked time to prepare | SUNY: provided notice, packet at hearing, opportunity to review and present defense; Jacobson consented to hearing date | Court: Notice and opportunity to be heard were adequate; no due process violation on notice/discovery |
| Right to cross-examine reporting student | Jacobson: denial of ability to question reporting student violated due process and risked erroneous deprivation | SUNY: Enough is Enough Law does not require cross-examination; complainant may decline participation; Jacobson could question Blaise (the complainant) | Majority: No categorical right here; limiting cross-examination did not deny due process on this record because no material factual conflict; dissent: cross-examination necessary given credibility disputes |
| Accuracy of Title IX Coordinator’s instructions on affirmative consent/"initiate" | Jacobson: Blaise misdefined affirmative consent and initiation, misleading the Board | SUNY: applied Enough is Enough standards | Court: Blaise gave incorrect explanations about consent and initiation; those errors undermined the Board's stated findings and rationale |
| Sufficiency of evidence and remedy | Jacobson: decision unsupported/substantial evidence lacking | SUNY: evidence supported finding and sanction | Court: Unable to conclude insufficiency; because of misstatements and lack of adequate findings/rationale, remitted for a new hearing compliant with article 129-B (annulled and remitted). Dissent would annul outright and expunge record |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Weber v. State Univ. of N.Y., Coll. at Cortland, 150 A.D.3d 1429 (appellate division) (limited discovery/cross-examination rights in campus disciplinary hearings)
- Matter of Doe v. Skidmore Coll., 152 A.D.3d 932 (appellate division) (private college context; alternative procedures for questioning complainant)
- Matter of Lambraia v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Binghamton, 135 A.D.3d 1144 (appellate division) (notice and opportunity to be heard standards in student discipline)
- Matter of Boyd v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Cortland, 110 A.D.3d 1174 (appellate division) (faculty/administrator as complainant and scope of questioning)
- Matter of Monnat v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Canton, 125 A.D.3d 1176 (appellate division) (remedy of remittal for new hearing when procedures defective)
- Winnick v. Manning, 460 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1972) (cross-examination not an essential requirement in all school disciplinary proceedings)
- Blanton v. State Univ. of N.Y., 489 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1973) (scope of due process protections in student discipline)
- Doe v. University of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017) (severity of consequences from campus sexual-misconduct findings and importance of procedural protections)