Legal battle at Yale Law School continues as University files to dismiss case
Lawyers for the University filed a motion to dismiss the case of retaliation brought by two students, marking the most recent development in the ongoing case.
Michael Garman, Staff Photographer
A legal battle at Yale Law School, involving two students who say their refusal to sign a statement condemning professor Amy Chua cost them professional opportunities, is now entering its fourth month — and the University wants it shut down.
Yale’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the Nov. 15 lawsuit on Monday in a 46-page motion arguing that the seven alleged claims of legal violations perpetrated by the University are all legally baseless. The students, Sierra Stubbs LAW ’23 and Gavin Jackson LAW ’22, accused three Law School administrators — Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken, Law School Associate Dean Ellen Cosgrove and Director of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Yaseen Eldik — of breach of contract, defamation and intentional interference with prospective business relationships, among other claims.
Stubbs and Jackson had initially filed their suit anonymously, but following a Dec. 6 University motion to name the plaintiffs, a Connecticut judge recently ruled that the students could not proceed anonymously. The University’s recent Feb. 14 motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety addresses each individual claim and argues that the plaintiffs misunderstand the law and University regulations and fail to demonstrate specific damages.
“Plaintiffs have not soundly alleged any of their seven causes of action,” the motion reads. “Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, the [second amended complaint] should be dismissed in its entirety.”
Jackson and Stubbs alleged that they were “blackball[ed]” from job opportunities after they refused to endorse a statement in the ongoing investigation against law professor Amy Chua. They further alleged that the administrators violated the University handbook by retaliating against them for their decision, interfered with their business and professional opportunities and defamed them within the Yale Law School community.
University spokesperson Karen Peart declined to comment further, but has told the News in the past that the lawsuit is “legally and factually baseless.”
“We are confident that our clients have pleaded claims which should proceed to trial and look forward to litigating the motion,” lawyer for the plaintiffs John Balestriere LAW ’98 wrote in an email to the News.
The University’s motion first addresses the central allegation that the administrators are guilty of a breach of contract by retaliating against the students. The motion argued that the plaintiffs’ claim fails to meet the necessary criteria for a breach of contract.
The University’s legal team pointed to the fact that the contract at hand — the Yale University Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment — was not in effect when the events took place. They also noted that the plaintiffs never reported a concern or filed a complaint pursuant to this specific policy. Therefore, the motion argues, the administrators cannot be in violation of this contract, regardless of whether any retaliation occurred.
Stubbs and Jackson also had alleged that the retaliation interfered with the students’ relationship with a professor — and that this had a negative impact on their academic and professional careers by jeopardizing “prospective relationship[s] with Yale’s professors and judges’ chambers around the country.”
The University’s response argued that the sweeping nature of this claim invalidates itself: in order to demonstrate interference, the students would need to point to a specific third party. While the plaintiffs do reference a specific law professor — known to be Paul Kahn, although he is not named in the suit — arguing that the administrators defamed the students directly to Kahn, the University’s motion argued that the underlying claim is “baseless” and that the plaintiffs did not face any retaliation from Kahn.
The retaliation, according to the plaintiffs, primarily materialized in Stubbs’ inability to serve as a Coker Fellow, a prestigious fellowship at Yale Law School. However, the claim notes that the students were never denied the opportunity; Stubbs did, in fact, receive a Coker Fellowship.
“Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged they suffered actual loss,” the University’s motion reads. “They don’t allege the Professor [Kahn] denied either of them a Coker fellowship, or that they even applied to the Professor for a Coker fellowship… They don’t allege that, because they ‘lost’ the fellowships, they made less money this year than they currently make in other jobs. In short, they plead no factually-based theory of actual loss.”
David Lat LAW ’99, the author of “Original Jurisdiction” — a newsletter about law and the legal profession — explained that a motion to dismiss argues that even if everything the plaintiffs say in their complaint is true, the plaintiffs still do not have a case. Here, the University’s lawyers are asserting that the behavior alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint breaks no laws.
However, Lat explained that there might be a secondary reason behind the decision to seek to dismiss the case altogether.
“The goal of filing a motion to dismiss is to get a case tossed before the discovery process, since discovery could unearth damaging or embarrassing information about the defendants,” Lat said. “To avoid discovery, you need to get the entire case dismissed. So it makes sense that Yale is trying to get the whole case dismissed.”
He also explained that if the University’s motion is dismissed and the case proceeds, the parties will exchange information as part of discovery and use that in further litigation.
The original lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the State of Connecticut.