Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

A student who Syracuse University said poses “an immediate physical threat” to the campus community is suing SU, alleging the university violated its own policies when suspending him in the fall.

The lawsuit, filed in the Onondaga County Supreme Court, claims that SU officials considered evidence they shouldn’t have during a hearing about the plaintiff’s interim suspension. It also claims the university failed to notify the plaintiff that he could bring witnesses to the hearing.

The exact details of the case, which revolves around violations related to Title IX, are unclear. SU asked a judge in February to seal the entire docket, barring the public from accessing any documents associated with it. The judge sealed the docket on Feb. 11.

Michael Grygiel, of Greenberg Traurig LLP, filed a motion Friday on behalf of The Daily Orange opposing the sealing of the docket. The D.O. obtained court documents prior to the sealing that provide only a small glimpse into the details of the case. Since all documents related to the case are now under seal, the public cannot access them.

The docket is one of at least three lawsuits related to alleged Title IX violations that the university has requested be sealed in recent months.

“Syracuse University takes the privacy of its students very seriously, especially the privacy of students who report experiencing sexual assault or harassment,” said Sarah Scalese, senior associate vice president for university communications, in a statement Sunday. “In this particular case, the petitioner included the identity of one such student in the court filings. The university would support unsealing the record if the identities of any students who are not parties to the case are first redacted.”

In its request to seal the docket, SU asked for a blanket seal of all documents related to the case rather than requesting any specific redactions. It cited the “sensitive nature of the allegations” in its request.

The Syracuse City Court issued an order of protection on Sept. 27 ordering the lawsuit’s plaintiff to stay away from another SU student. The Department of Public Safety issued him a temporary no-contact order on the same day.

On Oct. 9, SU placed the plaintiff on interim suspension, which restricts all access to university facilities or property.

The plaintiff attended a hearing of the University Appeals Board on Oct. 14 to challenge his suspension. University policy dictates that such an appeal would be based only on the merits of a student’s suspension — not the merits of their alleged conduct violations.

Dean of Students Marianne Thomson told the board that university employees from a variety of campus offices made the decision to immediately suspend the student, who they determined was “an imminent risk” to campus.

“We do not take that lightly. We do not get to that level often,” Thomson said during the hearing, according to court records obtained prior to the sealing of the docket.

During the same hearing, SU officials asked the plaintiff if he’d like to present any witnesses to testify on his behalf — an option he did not think was available based on the information provided to him by SU.

“Because this is not based on the merits of the case, I did not believe I could even bring a witness,” the plaintiff told the board, court records show.

“Okay. And that’s not a problem. You may not have wanted to, anyways,” a university employee responded.

“Actually, I would have wanted to, ma’am, if I knew that was a possibility,” the plaintiff said.

An employee then told the plaintiff he will have an opportunity to bring witnesses to his hearing. The board upheld the suspension “considering the egregious nature of the alleged conduct” involved in the case.

The lawsuit claims that SU didn’t follow its own policies and procedures by holding a hearing on the merits of the alleged victim’s claims. The resulting decision to uphold the interim suspension was “arbitrary and capricious,” the lawsuit argues. The facts of the case demonstrate that the plaintiff, who was attending classes remotely and lived off campus, was not a threat to the SU community, the lawsuit claims.

Published on March 14, 2021 at 10:18 pm

Contact Michael: [email protected] | @MichaelSessa3