the final case scheduled for oral argument on the calendar today is jeffrey wolf versus state university of new york number sixteen five five three help you back thank you my name is jeffrey well from across a in the complexity of my lawsuit warrants further consideration from this court and that the district court judge did not allow when reading the totality of the facts presented there are many unresolved issues regarding my case with the most prominent being sunni's in capability to produce the name of the female that made me a marked man and forced faculty the watch me closely after informing client that i caused them emotional distress this person is believed to be michael caton now known as michael williams and i can prove to a jury that she was the monkey that tricked the cat into burning his paw it took a court order to uncover the falcons names in the rejected police report including kat in who finally admitted to a sexual relationship after years of denial to officials through core order in toronto tori's this brings me to my next on result issue caton sexual harassment claims have always trump because of the evidence i presented contrary to her affidavit with that being said judge sand's do not act as an impartial arbitrator and give both sunni and kat and all the benefits of the doubt when she discriminately dismissed my lawsuit even after i had proven that cat and was that was after considerable uncertainty about it rejected initially i never rejected the contract i said that i was uncomfortable with the wording within the contract and i made many phone calls to sun i was untrue and what process do you think you should have been given for your teaching contract was terminated they withheld numerous facts regarding that contract that they gave to me and world if that contract was on fear and loathing and you refused to sign it or were uncomfortable with it and being uncomfortable with it was grounds for vam firing you was the reason they fired you even if that was wrong and wrong under state law that isn't a federal pl see a federal claim isn't because of a treated you wrongly that maybe as a contract claim we can only step in if you were fired for some reasons which have to do with race sex etc cetera yes so that the fact that the contract may have been a nasty one and because it was a nasty one you didn't sign it when they wanted and because you didn't sign it when they wanted they then kick you out may be terrible that we may not be able to do anything about that i understand that contract was brought about due to sexual know what what evidence is fear that contract was just a facade for vis a vis the police report the redacted police report that they filled out regarding our michael caton coming forward to file a sexual harassment allegations against me and what she did not and they were most multiple things written within that report stating that i cheated i plagiarized they were trying to dismiss me on that you'll have you have three minutes rebuttal maybe we could go ahead in here oh what sunni and miss williams have to say with their counsel do and then you have a chance to respond all right asking that the court affirm the judgment of the district court because mr wolfson academic dismissal from the master's program at suny cortland was based on legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons unrelated to his gender and he was affor more than the minimal process that was due in the context of an academic dismissal with respect to his section one thousand nine hundred three claims the district court properly dismissed the due process the procedural due process claim against individual defendants because mr wolfe was afforded more than the minimal process that was due which was under the constitution notice and a careful and deliberate ultimate decision let me ask you a question about the process my understanding is that two of  the ministry of yours who made the initial decision to terminate mr wolf's teaching position also said on the appeals board the teacher education board of appeals why is this that does not not raise a procedural concern due process kind of it is correct that those two sat on the appeals board as well as to other members of the appeals board and mr wolfe's complaint appears to be that that appeals board made an ultimate decision they in fact made a recommendation to deal a chance who made the ultimate decision but more importantly the that does not offend the constitution because the constitution requires notice and a careful ultimate deliberative decision not necessarily an appeal so the the appeal and his claim about the appeal process does not violate the minimally minimal requirements under the constitution for it i can academic dismiss review the decision and then up to the deed without this intermediate step would be procedural due process have been met yes because that that decision was still the product of a careful and deliberate if process your argument is it doesn't matter if the appellate tribunals was simply rubber stamping view original which  that stand for the proposition that when those minimum requirements are met you need not have find fault with the at the actual layer that was provided more than minimal process was provided here and therefore does not offend the constitution and even if even if mr wolf had raised an issue of fact on those points the defendants are entitled to find immunity because there is no violation of a clearly protected constitutional right are there any cases that deal in the context of academic discipline with appellate decision makers who have knowledge of the facts  and whether that deprives a person of due process whether at the appellate level in an academic setting you have to have people who come to the situation without any prior  the facts no judge we've not cited any cases to that effect we relied on the cases that stand there were not that i'm aware either way not that i'm aware of because you know argument that more he was accorded more than the process that is due we did not have an bias process with the appeal and furthermore the defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity because that was not a clearly established constitutional requirement at the time and turning to the title nine just take a moment to say something about title nine because your time is up thank you judge the dismissal from the master's program was based on legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons is the plaintiff's failure to take responsibility for his actions and that is what resulted in the initial letter the conduct letter that he received back in december and then the contract that he received prior to suit in teaching which he  did advise the sunni that he was not going to sign the day before he infected sign it and then went to orientation against the sunni's direct direction not to go  but as a as it pertains to my client ms williams she is not a state actor but if if she as mr wolf his alleged she made false complaints about him to school administrators could we find that she was acting in concert with the school and that the district court was wrong and holding she wasn't liable under ninety that is mr wells argument but he has not proven that in order to prove any kind of conspiracy there has to be some showing that there was joint activity or agreement a plan to to do something harmful that that would injure plaintiff here there's no evidence of that whatsoever in fact that in any event is a filing of a  false without some evidence of a plan or concerted activity does not establish a conspiracy you don't think that there was enough in his allegations giving her she'd been at this school for fourteen years  beaten different capacity and presumably knew some of the players here that's insufficient basis for it is it is your honor and also that the sunni defendants are very clear that they did not consider that to not even know it and the timing of the initial problem with his conduct was before any of the allegations that he makes regarding my client so he was having considerable issues in the program before this is a summary judgment is a statement people that they didn't consider it or that they didn't know of in fact it is in dispute or is it a fact it is not a dispute because no evidence to the contrary was presented and is not in dispute in fact there is no not only is there no evidence the contrary all of the evidence from from all the sunni defendants and my client and even fact everybody is in agreement on that including mr wolf in terms of the timing so will your vote for mr wall and then the final just very briefly on the cat's paw issue mr wolf has that backwards we the cats p point eight four g p a i was very good out the work that i did i was a very hard worker while also being accused of plagiarism and cheating they checked into my plagiarism cheating and they checked into all my work and found no evidence that i cheated or plagiarized to sunni and the fair process policy that they dismissed me out yes there were two of the four board members that had already made decisions to dismiss me before being placed into that court of appeals there they also had vested interest in the outcome of my appeal and decide to leave so so did the dean and really chance who they gave the recommendation to all three had decided long before this hearing and they deem me a deviant  story to be heard in a court or law and violated my constitutional rights by not allowing the factual evidence to be presented to an impartial jury proving that the sunni covered up numerous allegations including sexual harassment while soliciting information from faculty use form faculty that i had a relationship with michael cat and after an incident that happened in the summer of two thousand and eleven and i had felt that she had been talking negatively about me to professors because she had been talking negatively about me to classmates and they had been treating me differently after informing them of that relationship they subsequently brought her in and she then flipped the script and informed them that she had no kind of relations with me and that i stalked her sexually harassed  introduce to the district court there were e mails that were written by faculty in december are november twenty ninth of two thousand and ten two days before the december first incident in which i was written up for causing emotional distress to a classmate an unnamed classmate at that one day after i broke up with michael williams or michael caton ok thank you very much i think we have the arguments we will reserve decision thank you so much