Cases & Developments

Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a graduate of New York University, brought Title IX, tort, and contract claims against the University and two officials alleging they responded inadequately when he reported that accusations he had committed sexual misconduct appeared on a Google spreadsheet, known as the “Blacklist,” that was maintained by an anonymous group of NYU students. The University issued a statement encouraging students to use University reporting mechanisms rather than the anonymous spreadsheet and offering support options for those impacted. In dismissing both his deliberate indifference and hostile education environment claims, the court found that (1) plaintiff failed to plead that the University exercised substantial control over the anonymous students and (2) the University’s alleged lack of response was not clearly unreasonable given that he did not allege that it knew who posted the allegations, whether they were true or false, or how to remove the spreadsheet. The court also noted that had the University attempted to discipline the students involved it “could find itself in the precarious position of disciplining students for online speech on non-university accounts.” The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims. 

Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a former student at St. John’s University, brought erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, and hostile educational environment claims against the University after he was suspended for engaging in non-consensual sexual contact with an intoxicated student and then expelled for sexually assaulting another student while on suspension. Plaintiff also brought a defamation claim against his first complainant, alleging that she posted an anonymous tweet about him under the hashtag “#SurvivingSJU.” In affirming dismissal of his erroneous outcome claim related to the first complainant, the Second Circuit held that though he had plausibly alleged the conduct panel erred in accepting his admission of engaging in the contact but not crediting his assertion that the complainant had initiated it, he had not plausibly alleged that this error was attributable to sex bias. Turning to his second erroneous outcome claim, the court found that though he had plausibly alleged that the #SurvivingSJU “tweet storm” placed public pressure on the University, he had not sufficiently identified a procedural irregularity in the University’s response to the second allegation against him. His selective enforcement claim failed because he had not plausibly alleged that he and his complainants were similarly situated. His hostile environment claim failed because his assertion of one defamatory tweet was not enough to allege a severe or pervasive hostile environment.