Boise v. New York University

2005 WL 2899853 (2005)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Boise v. New York University

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2005 WL 2899853 (2005)

Facts

Boise (plaintiff) was a 76-year-old tenured professor in the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service (the Wagner School) at New York University (defendant). Boise filed an initial lawsuit alleging age discrimination against the university in 2000 based on incidents not relevant to his case. Boise’s initial lawsuit was ultimately dismissed. Six other professors over the age of 70 taught in the Wagner School at the time, and none of them, including Boise, had ever been the subject of derogatory comments regarding their age from university officials. In 2003, the Dean of the Wagner School initiated termination proceedings against Boise due to Boise’s grading practices in violation of university policy, his harassment of other faculty and staff, his tampering with faculty mailboxes, and other bizarre behavior. A hearing was held before the hearing panel of the Faculty Tenure Committee in accordance with the university’s rules regarding the termination of a tenured professor. The panel recommended termination based on Boise’s inappropriate behavior, which it found to be “conduct of a character seriously prejudicial to . . . the welfare of the University.” The Tenure Appeal Committee affirmed, finding that termination was appropriate. Boise filed a lawsuit against the university, alleging that he was discriminated against based on his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and retaliated against for filing his initial lawsuit. The university filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sweet, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership