A suspended Yale University student who was accused of
using artificial intelligence to cheat has asked a Connecticut federal judge to keep a lawsuit over his
discipline alive, calling for relief from the “ongoing harm” to his reputation and career prospects.
Thierry Rignol, a French national, opposed Yale’s dismissal motion in a Wednesday filing in the
District of Connecticut, arguing that Yale and several officials who were named as defendants were
asking the court to credit their own version of events, even though the plaintiff’s assertions are
supposed to be taken as true at the dismissal stage.
“The complaint meticulously lays out a timeline of events, specific actions taken by individual
defendants, and direct violations of the [School of Management] administration’s own policies and
procedures, establishing a robust factual picture supporting each claim,” the memorandum of law
said. “When accepting these detailed factual statements as true and drawing all reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor, the complaint clearly states plausible claims for relief.”
Rignol sued Feb. 3 to overturn his “wrongful, discriminatory, and procedurally lawless” one-year
suspension and failing grade in a class he took as part of Yale’s Executive Master of Business
Administration program. He said his tuition for the program was $208,500 and he was on track to
graduate at the top of his class before he was accused of using AI to cheat on a final exam.
Seeking dismissal of an amended complaint on July 30, the defense said Rignol was asking the court
to second-guess an educational institution’s legitimate disciplinary decision, which would run afoul of
the Connecticut Supreme Court’s 1996 ruling in Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital. But Rignol, in
his opposition, said the defendants violated their own written procedures, and they were leaning on
Gupta to seek immunity from judicial review.
Gupta, according to Rignol, only applies to academic judgments, not disciplinary proceedings.
“Even if, arguendo, this court were to apply the deferential Gupta standard, dismissal is still improper.
Gupta permits judicial review where the university acts ‘arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith,'” the
memo said. “Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pleads detailed facts showing that defendants’
disciplinary actions were not grounded in academic judgment but in arbitrary and bad-faith
departures from its own rules.”
Rignol claimed that the school used an unreliable AI detection tool, in violation of its own policies, to
accuse him of cheating. He alleged that the tool is known to show bias against non-native English
speakers like himself.
Rignol said the defendants are claiming that administrators and a body known as the Honor
Committee determined that he did cheat, but he was actually accused of “not being forthcoming.”
The exact nature of the findings is disputed and should be put to a jury, he argued.
The defendants also said Rignol’s claims — including breach of contract and the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VI, and
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress — were legally deficient. The current version
of the complaint, filed June 18, also brings claims for promissory estoppel, defamation, false light and
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
“Plaintiff’s defamation claim is based on alleged statements that are privileged and that plaintiff’s own
complaint establishes are true or at least substantially true,” the dismissal memo said. “Plaintiff’s
CUTPA claim is barred by well-established precedent prohibiting CUTPA claims over academic
matters.”
On May 5, U.S. District Judge Sarah F. Russell denied Rignol’s request for a preliminary injunction
that would restore him to good standing at Yale and allow him to graduate as originally scheduled.
An attorney for Rignol, Andrew T. Miltenberg of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP, told Law360 in a
statement that Rignol “was subjected to investigative tactics and institutional pressures that no
American student would reasonably be expected to face.” He pointed to the allegation that one of the
defendants used a threat of deportation to pressure Rignol to confess, calling it “discriminatory and
coercive conduct” that violated his civil rights.
“This is not only a question of fairness — it is a matter of federal law,” he said. “The unequal
treatment of international students within Yale’s disciplinary process raises serious concerns about
the university’s compliance with its legal obligations and its stated commitment to equity and
justice.”
Counsel for the defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
Rignol is represented by Stuart Bernstein, Andrew T. Miltenberg and Kimberly S. Courtney of Nesenoff
& Miltenberg LLP and Audrey A. Felsen of Koffsky & Felsen LLC.
The defendants are represented by James M. Sconzo and Brendan N. Gooley of Carlton Fields PC.
The case is Rignol v. Yale University et al., case number 3:25-cv-00159, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut.
–Editing by Patrick Reagan.
Update: This article has been updated to include comment from Rignol’s attorney.