In a decision dated March 23, 1998, New York State Supreme Court Justice Phillip R. Rumsey dismissed remaining claims in a lawsuit brought by Professor James Maas against Cornell University.

The lawsuit, which was filed in August 1995, sought damages allegedly suffered by Maas in connection with the University's resolution of sexual harassment charges leveled against him by four of his former students. As a result of the charges, an elected faculty committee of the College of Arts and Sciences, the Professional Ethics Committee, unanimously found that Maas "repeatedly behaved both unprofessionally and inappropriately in his relationship with [three of] these students and that in effect this behavior constituted sexual harassment" and that Maas "committed harassment of a more manifestly sexual and egregious sort" with the fourth student. The Dean of the College and the University Provost upheld the committee's determination.

The lawsuit originally alleged eight separate claims and damages of more than $1.5 million. In a September 10, 1996 decision, Justice Rumsey dismissed six of the eight claims.

Following Maas' appeal of this ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court affirmed Justice Rumsey's decision in a December 11, 1997 opinion. The Appellate Division specifically held that Cornell properly adopted its sexual harassment guidelines and properly applied those procedures to the Maas case. The appellate court ruling affirmed: that sexual harassment procedures adopted by Cornell's College of Arts and Sciences were valid; that a disciplinary action brought against Maas under those procedures did not breach Maas' employment contract with the university; that the university did not breach its fiduciary duty; that Cornell did not breach a promise of confidentiality; that Cornell did not intentionally interfere with Maas' economic relations with third parties; and that the College of Arts and Sciences procedures did not violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

In a February 23, 1998 decision and order, the Appellate Division also denied Maas' requests for reargument of the appeal and for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

In the March 23, 1998 ruling, Justice Rumsey dismissed the last two claims in Maas' lawsuit and denied Maas' request to amend his complaint to allege new theories of liability against Cornell. In his decision, Justice Rumsey wrote, "It is not the court's function to judicially tailor the complaint to make it fit the plaintiff's need or desire for a forum." He wrote further that: "Maas sued upon eight causes of action on various legal theories all of which have been examined by this court, and six of which have been re-examined upon appeal. 'Irrespective' that eight causes of action have now been determined legally insufficient, Maas would like to begin anew on the same basic facts and a different theory. Aside from compounding the extraordinary amounts of time, effort and expense Cornell has expended to date, an amendment permitting a new cause of action ... at this point also prejudices Cornell's defense of the claim."

Justice Rumsey's ruling totally disposes of Maas' claims against the University, although Maas may seek further review by an appellate court.

University Counsel James J. Mingle said today that he is gratified that the court confirmed the University's position from the outset that the lawsuit had no merit. "The procedures pursuant to which the College of Arts and Sciences handled the complaints of sexual harassment against Maas resulted in extensive hearings and far more 'process' than the law requires," Mingle said. "The committee's findings were reviewed at two levels within the University, and now at two levels in the courts. We hope that Professor Maas will now put the matter behind him."

Associate University Counsel Nelson E. Roth, who argued the case on behalf of Cornell, added that he was delighted with the decision, which makes clear that the lawsuit had no basis in fact or law.

"Although it is unfortunate that the University was compelled to devote extraordinary resources to the defense of Maas' claims, the Office of University Counsel believed from the beginning that the Professional Ethics Committee, the Dean of the College, and the Provost all exercised their delegated responsibility with care and integrity," Roth said. "Counsel's office and the University take seriously the obligation to protect this type of decision from baseless claims and will continue to defend vigorously against all such lawsuits."

Roth said that he was also particularly pleased with Justice Rumsey's rejection of Maas' attempt to add a claim of fraud to the proceedings: "Other than making a formal motion," wrote the Court, "counsel for Maas has not complied with any of the substantive requirements for such an amendment. He has not met his burden to demonstrate that the proposed claim can be supported ... Looking to the factual allegations already before the court it is dubious that there is any merit to a proposed claim of fraud. The record thus far is devoid of any facts or allegations of deceit on the part of Cornell."

The lawsuit against Cornell was filed by the Center for Individual Rights, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Maas in 1995. He was also represented by David A. Stoll, Esq. of New York City, and Raymond M. Schlather, Esq. of Ithaca.