(John Doe v. Yale University, et al., No. 25-159, D. Conn.)
(Complaint available. Document #46-250305-013C.)
An individual identified as John Doe filed the complaint on Feb. 3 against Yale and various related entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut claiming he was improperly accused of using AI to cheat and was suspended from the School of Management.
Yet Yale and the other defendants based their cheating claims on AI detection tools they knew were not reliable and that the school’s own policies prohibit, Doe says. After a hearing, the defendants required that Doe return for a second hearing on the same day without any notice of the second hearing as required by rules governing student discipline. Despite Doe’s inability to attend, Yale held the second hearing without him and rendered a decision, Doe says.
“On the basis of Yale's erroneous, biased decision, Yale first issued Plaintiff a finding of responsibility for ‘not being forthcoming’ and suspended him for one year, but made no finding as to the underlying charge of ‘improperly utilized Artificial Intelligence on the final exam in the course.’ Yale did not follow the required procedural rules in bringing this new charge of ‘not being forthcoming.’ Plaintiff was not given fair notice or opportunity to defend the new charge of ‘not being forthcoming’ against him,” Doe says.
Punishment
On appeal, a third charge of violating exam rules was added, and Doe says Yale failed him for the course without giving him any basis for the decision and without concluding that he actually used AI.
Doe says the school’s rules permit giving a student a failing grade if he is caught cheating but does not permit imposing a suspension. Doe says that as a result of the suspension, he cannot attend the school or graduate from the School of Management and that his relationship with peers, professors and school staff has been harmed.
Doe alleges claims for breach of contract against all defendants, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against all defendants, discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., retaliation, discrimination based on national origin under Section 2000d, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Doe seeks past and future economic damages as well as compensation for damages to his physical and emotional well being and a declaration that both the failing grade and suspension are reversed.
In addition to Yale, the suit names as defendants Yale University Board of Trustees, Wendy Tsung, K. Geert Rouwenthorst, Jacob Thomas, Sherilyn Scully, James Choic and Anjani Jain individually and in their official capacities.
Doe is represented by Christine D. Brown, Andrew T. Miltenberg, Stuart Bernstein and Kimberly S. Courtney of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP in New York.