Doe v. New York University

Background

Jane Doe, a first-year student at New York University, brought a state-law breach-of-contract action seeking specific performance. She challenged NYU’s decision to suspend her for the remainder of the spring semester after an indoor gathering at an off-campus apartment on January 30, 2021. Doe described the event as a private dinner attended by seven people and said that the attendees wore masks except while eating and briefly taking a photograph. NYU investigated after a photograph showed students closely gathered indoors without masks or social distancing. NYU found Doe responsible for violating Student Conduct Policy sections B1 and E3 and denied her administrative appeal.

NYU’s policies prohibited conduct that endangered the health or safety of the university community and violations of the university’s COVID-19 access rules or related public-health orders. NYU also repeatedly told students that its health and safety requirements applied to off-campus gatherings and that violations could result in suspension. The opinion states that Doe had received and acknowledged several of these communications and had previously been involved in two other disciplinary matters concerning possible COVID-19 policy violations.

The court had previously entered a temporary restraining order preventing NYU from enforcing the suspension while it considered Doe’s request for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before a final judgment. To obtain one, Doe had to show, among other things, that she was likely to succeed on the merits of her claim.

Jurisdiction and applicable review

The court held that it had federal diversity jurisdiction over the dispute. It rejected NYU’s argument that New York’s Article 78 procedure necessarily deprived the federal court of jurisdiction. Article 78 is a New York procedure for reviewing certain administrative and institutional decisions. The court reasoned that a state procedural requirement could not eliminate federal jurisdiction granted by Congress.

The court nevertheless held that New York’s deferential Article 78 standard governed the substance of Doe’s challenge because the essence of her contract claim was an attack on NYU’s disciplinary decision. Under that standard, a private university’s disciplinary decision generally stands if the university substantially followed its procedures, unless the decision was outside its authority, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or the punishment was so disproportionate that it was shocking to a sense of fairness. The court stated that it would treat Doe’s improperly styled contract action as an Article 78-type challenge for purposes of applying that standard.

Merits of the preliminary-injunction request

The court concluded that Doe had not shown a likelihood of success under either the deferential Article 78 standard or the contract theory she advanced. It rejected Doe’s argument that NYU’s COVID-19 access policy applied only to on-campus conduct. The court noted that the policy did not state that it was exclusive, that another policy covered violations of related public-health orders, and that NYU’s conduct policy expressly allowed discipline for off-campus conduct that threatened the university community’s health or safety.

The court also found that NYU had repeatedly and clearly communicated the off-campus reach of its rules. It concluded that the photograph itself showed conduct violating NYU’s policies and applicable state and city guidance, and that NYU’s decision to suspend Doe was not shown to be arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. The court further stated that similar one-semester suspensions had not been found to be excessively unfair in other New York proceedings.

Because Doe failed to establish likely success on the merits, the court did not analyze whether she would suffer irreparable harm, whether the balance of hardships favored her, or whether an injunction would serve the public interest.

Pseudonym request and disposition

The court granted Doe’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym. It found that revealing her identity posed a risk of online retaliation and that Doe represented that disclosure could interfere with her stated career goals.

The court denied Doe’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order. It granted her motion to proceed under a pseudonym.