82 F. Supp. 3d 524
D. Mass.2014Background
- Walker, a Harvard Law School (HLS) student and JOLT member, submitted drafts of a law-journal comment in February 2009; the final draft was turned in late (Feb. 24).
- JOLT editors found numerous unattributed passages after using internet searches and documented 23 instances of apparent plagiarism; editors referred the matter to the Dean of Students.
- The HLS Administrative Board charged Walker with plagiarism, held a hearing (May 7, 2009), and issued a private formal reprimand (not suspension); the reprimand is noted on her transcript.
- Walker sued Harvard, Dean Cosgrove, and Professor Weinreb for breach of contract (alleging violations of Handbook procedures) and defamation, seeking damages and injunctive relief; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court analyzed contract interpretation under an objective "reasonable expectations" standard and reviewed whether Board procedures met basic fairness; it also evaluated truth and fault for the defamation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "submit" (Handbook) | Walker: her draft was not a "submitted" work because it was a work-in-progress; "submit" implies yielding to another. | Harvard: "submit" reasonably means to give work to someone for consideration/approval (transitive use); drafts given to editors qualify. | Court: "submit" reasonably includes handing a draft to a journal for editing; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Whether Board proceedings were non-adversarial | Walker: proceedings were adversarial and hostile (various conduct cited). | Harvard: transcript and record show the hearing was non-adversarial and comported with Handbook expectations. | Court: no genuine dispute of adversarial conduct; proceedings were non-adversarial. |
| Procedural protections (favorability, cross-examination, quantum of proof) | Walker: Handbook guaranteed most-favorable resolution, right to cross-examine witnesses, and sanctions only on clear-and-convincing evidence; Board violated these. | Harvard: provisions read objectively; limits on cross‑examination for relevance and use of non‑courtroom evidence are permissible; sanctions discretionary and evidence supported finding. | Court: Handbook interpreted objectively; limits were reasonable; evidence supported violation by clear and convincing standard; no breach. |
| Defamation based on transcript notation | Walker: transcript note that she was issued a reprimand for plagiarism is defamatory and published to third parties. | Harvard: statements are true (plagiarism finding supported) and no actual malice; truth is a defense to defamation. | Court: statements were true and defendants not at fault; summary judgment for defendants on defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S. 2014) (summary judgment requires viewing evidence in plaintiff's favor)
- Havlik v. Johnson & Wales Univ., 509 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (student–university contract interpreted by reasonable expectations)
- Cloud v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 720 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1983) (review of university disciplinary procedures against reasonable-expectations standard)
- Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474 (Mass. 2000) (universities have broad discretion in disciplinary sanctions and need not follow courtroom evidentiary rules)
- Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2012) (elements of defamation under Massachusetts law)
- Piccone v. Bartels, F. Supp. 3d 198 (D. Mass. 2014) (actual malice in university context as ill will or malevolent intent)