## Facts

- A Brandeis University student accused David Arlen Schaer, an undergraduate, of sexual assault allegedly occurring in the early hours of February 14, 1996.
- The complainant alleged Schaer came to her dorm room, they kissed, she said she did not want sex, and she later awoke to Schaer having intercourse with her.
- On April 24, 1996, the Brandeis Board on Student Conduct held a disciplinary hearing and found Schaer had (1) engaged in unwanted sexual activity and (2) created a hostile environment.
- Brandeis imposed sanctions including an approximately four-month suspension and disciplinary probation for the remainder of Schaer’s enrollment.
- Schaer sought a new hearing before the University Appeals Board on Student Conduct; the request was denied on May 13, 1996.
- Schaer sued in Massachusetts Superior Court seeking injunctive relief and damages, primarily asserting a contract theory based on student handbooks and disciplinary codes.
- Schaer alleged procedural unfairness, including inadequate investigation, improper limits on witness testimony, improper consideration of testimony, insufficient recordkeeping, and lack of an articulated standard of proof.

## Issues

1. Whether a student disciplined by a private university states a breach-of-contract claim by alleging the university did not provide “fair” procedures, without identifying a specific handbook-based promise that was violated.
2. What level of judicial review applies to disciplinary decisions and procedures of private universities.
3. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient, nonconclusory facts to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Appeals Court’s reinstatement of the breach-of-contract count and affirmed dismissal of the entire complaint.
- The court held the complaint did not allege facts showing Brandeis failed to meet the student’s reasonable expectations derived from identifiable promises in university materials.
- The court concluded that, as pleaded, Brandeis provided notice of charges, held a hearing, made findings, imposed authorized sanctions, and processed an appeal under its established structure.
- The court declined to require criminal-trial-type procedures (formal evidentiary rules, a verbatim transcript, or a mandated standard of proof) absent contractual language requiring them.

## Legal Principles

- The relationship between a student and a private university is generally contractual, with terms drawn from university publications, but enforcement depends on specific, identifiable promises.
- A student challenging discipline must plead specific facts which, if proven, would show the university failed to meet the student’s reasonable expectations under the contract.
- Courts are reluctant to interfere with private university academic and disciplinary decisions and will intervene only for clear noncompliance with the institution’s own rules or arbitrary and capricious action.
- General allegations that a proceeding was “unfair” are insufficient on a motion to dismiss unless tied to concrete deviations from promised procedures.

## Conclusion

The court held that a disciplined student must plead a breach of an identifiable handbook-based commitment, not broad claims of unfairness, and it affirmed dismissal because the alleged procedural defects were not connected to specific promised protections and did not plausibly show Brandeis departed from the parties’ reasonable expectations.


Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474, 735 N.E.2d 373 (2000)