Cases & Developments

Order granting in part and denying in part Donnelly College’s (“the College”) partial motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is a former nursing student at the College who asserts claims for alleged violations of Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, equal protection, and due process, as well as a state law claim for tortious interference with a contract against an individually named College professor. Plaintiff alleges that an unnamed professor referred to her test anxiety as “dumb” and sues the second professor who she claims “grabbed, [] squeezed, … and rubbed his hand up and down her leg” and “placed his hand on her thigh” on one occasion and rubbed his body against hers on another. She also alleges the second professor made threatening remarks in class, including that “if anyone wanted to report him, it would not go well because of his status” with the College, that he could make complaints against him “go away,” and that “[i]f anyone wants to do anything to me, I have guns,” as well as disparaging remarks, such as“[w]omen don’t learn well, and learn better if I piss them off.” She asserts that she tried to meet with the College’s Director of Nursing to discuss her concerns but was rebuffed. Then, during final exams, the second professor allegedly sat behind Plaintiff, “leaned forward, and whispered, ‘You gonna wish you gave me some of that pussy,’” and then, failed her on the exam, which she asserts she would have otherwise passed had it been graded fairly. Subsequently, the College placed Plaintiff on academic probation and suspension, which delayed her graduation and required that she attend an extra semester during which she was once more placed into the second professor’s class and subjected to additional alleged harassment, including commenting on her hair, nearly grazing her breast, and repeatedly touching her leg. Ultimately, she withdrew from the nursing program. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except her §1983 claims. The court declined to dismiss the Title IX sex discrimination claim, reasoning Plaintiff had provided sufficient allegations to maintain a claim that she was subject to sex-based harassment, including by receiving lowered grades based on her refusal of a professor’s advances. It rejected as irrelevant the College’s concern that Plaintiff failed to identify a male student who was treated more favorably, “particularly when it is not at all clear that plaintiff intends to pursue a ‘selective enforcement’ theory of liability.” However, it granted the motion to dismiss her sexual harassment and retaliation claims against the College since beyond seeking an unspecified meeting with the Director of Nursing, Plaintiff failed to allege that she “engaged in protected activity or, even assuming that she did, that any College official had knowledge that plaintiff had engaged in protected activity” and correspondingly, College officials lacked knowledge regarding the professor’s alleged harassment. Finally, the court granted dismissal of the disability discrimination claim reasoning that her allegations supported that her exam grades were altered “not based on any perceived disability but in retribution for [her] response to defendant[’s] alleged sexual advance,” and because the sole comment regarding her test anxiety was made after she was advised that she was not meeting academic standards.