Cases & Developments

Memorandum-Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a tenure-track assistant professor at St. Lawrence University, brought discrimination and retaliation claims against the University, alleging that the director of another program, with whom she was assigned to design a community-based learning experience, drugged and raped her, that the University had received information through social media and from an investigator at another university that her alleged assailant had been accused of sexual misconduct at two prior jobs, and that when she reported the assault the University launched a “sham” investigation before eventually hiring outside counsel to investigate. In permitting her hostile work environment claim to proceed, the court found plaintiff’s assertions that the University permitted her alleged assailant to continue to work on campus for over two months before placing him on administrative leave and that it did not issue findings regarding her report were sufficient to allege an inadequate effort to remedy the harassment. The court permitted her to proceed in her pre-assault and post-assault deliberate indifference claims, finding sufficient allegations that the University responded inadequately to (1) specific knowledge of alleged prior misconduct, and (2) plaintiff’s own report, providing insufficient supportive measures and an inadequate investigation. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding her assertion of a “sham” investigation was insufficient to allege an adverse action absent allegations that it had any impact upon her employment status.   

Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of medicine at Yale University, brought gender discrimination and contract claims against the University and multiple officials after he was removed from his positions as section chief and center director in 2014 for sexual harassment and from his endowed professorship in 2018, allegedly in the wake of negative publicity related to the earlier harassment allegations. In denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim, the court found, first, that plaintiff raised genuine issues as to whether removal from a named chair without a reduction in salary was an adverse action; and whether allegedly removing him from the chair without additional process so long after its first sanction, allegedly to avoid renewed negative publicity, demonstrated discriminatory animus. The court also found that the latter questions were sufficient to raise a question of pretext about the University’s asserted concern to respond adequately to negative sentiment within its medical school community. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the University on his contract claim, finding that although his position as professor was tenured, his endowed chair and positions as chief and director were at-will.