This document summarizes two court cases regarding sexual harassment of students by university professors. In Korf v. Ball State, the court upheld the termination of a tenured music professor for soliciting sexual favors from students in exchange for good grades. In Kracunas v. Iona College, the court found that Iona College was liable under Title IX for an English professor's sexual harassment of students, as the college failed to adequately respond to prior complaints against the professor. The document concludes that courts take professor harassment of students seriously and examine universities' investigations and enforcement of policies.

1. Respect the Boundaries:
How Courts Decide University
Sexual Harassment Cases
Matthew Marino
Education Law
Spring 2017

2. DrewUniversity
BulletinBoard

3. Introduction
 Workplace has evolved but sexual
harassment still exists.
 Courts rely on Title VII, Title IX, and
Federal Labor Relations in making their
decisions
 Educational workplace brings with it higher
standards of behavior, especially for
professors and students
 Sadly, professors are among the biggest
offenders
 Investigation is key
 Courts show little mercy if the evidence is
clear

4. Korfv.BallState
 William Korf: tenured professor of Music
History and Musicology
 Korf accused of soliciting sexual favors from
male students in exchange for good grades,
thus abusing his supervisory role
 Investigative board initially found no promise
of grades but clear, unethical conduct; three
years of probation
 Board of Trustees demanded review of decision;
committee recommended termination by Board
 Korf sued for multiple violations, including due
process and breach of contract

5. Korfv.BallState
(ctd.)
 Ball State moved for summary judgment:
 No issue of material fact; and immunity under 11th
Amendment
 Motion granted; Korf appealed judgment
 Korf: Ball State policies unclear regarding “consensual
relationships” between faculty and students
 Claimed lack of unethical behavior because no other
professor had ever been disciplined; Court rejected his
argument
 Korf insisted relationship was consensual; court reminded
him the committee and Board found it unethical
 No violation of due process since he had his hearing
 Korf’s claim of sexual preference being factor rejected by
court; no “selective enforcement” of policies = no issue of
material fact
 What Korf believed did not matter to court. Focused on role
as professor. Not the same as a “person on the street”
 Appeals court affirmed original judgment

6. Kracunasv.
IonaCollege
Michael Palma’s English classes
 Pallett failed assignment; discussed with Palma in his
office
 At meeting, Palma used inappropriate, sexual
language toward Pallett; she ended up with a “C” in
class
 Kracunas went to Palma’s office for readings.
 Palma expressed desire for intercourse w/her and
asked her to read sexually explicit readings
 Kracunas reported incident to dean, who showed her
policy manual and how to file harassment claim
 Pallett looked to do the same and also went to dean
 Palma talked to dean at football game and basically
admitted fault against Pallett
 Iona dragged its heels, so students filed suit

7. Kracunasv.
IonaCollege
(ctd.)
 Iona moved for summary judgment; believed Palma did not abuse
privilege and they had no part in it
 District court granted summary judgment; Kracunas and Pallett
appealed
 Appellate court noted Title VII, Title IX, and previous decision in
Murray v. NYU College of Dentistry
 Found that unlike Murray (co-worker status), Palma was a supervisor
and subject to higher standard
 Iona feared too much oversight would lead to more lawsuits (invasion of
privacy, etc.), but court disagreed
 Court rejected that claim as well as Iona’s claim that Palma was not
coercive
 Focused on role as professor and supervisor
 Court: having a policy does not equate to enforcement
 Iona had prior complaints against Palma- did nothing
 Appellate court vacated summary judgment motion

8. Conclusions
 Courts take professors’ sexual harassment of
students very seriously
 Federal guidelines, Title VII, and Title IX are
significant for interpretation of harassment
(Murray as opposed to Korf and Kracunas)
 Look for swift, decisive action by the university
 Examine evidence from hearings and
investigations in making decisions
 Universities need to be proactive, not reactive,
in investigations and decisions to terminate
unethical professors