Cases & Developments

Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Yeshiva University, brought Title IX and state-law claims against the University and multiple officials after an investigation found a University basketball player not responsible for sexually assaulting her in his off-campus apartment. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed in her post-assault deliberate indifference, state-law discrimination, and contract claims, finding that she had sufficiently alleged that (1) the law firm investigating the claim did not request evidence from her hospital rape kit or interview witnesses she identified and (2) the notice she received dismissing her complaint did not provide the reasons for the dismissal or a chance to appeal as required by the University’s policies. The court also permitted plaintiff to proceed in her state-law aiding and abetting of discrimination claim against two University officials and the law firm hired to investigate her Title IX claim. It dismissed her Title IX pre-assault and retaliation claims, as well as her IIED and deceptive consumer practices claims. 

Memorandum granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at East Stroudsburg University, brought Title IX, §1983, and tort claims against the University and multiple officials related to an alleged March 30, 2018, sexual assault in her dorm by a resident assistant (RA), and their tumultuous relationship dating back to fall of 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims as time-barred under the Pennsylvania general personal injury statute of limitations. The court found that plaintiff’s claims pertaining to events occurring on or after March 30, 2018, were timely under a state tolling provision for civil actions arising from sexual abuse when the action is brought by an individual under the age of 24. The court found that it lacked adequate information to determine the applicability of sovereign immunity, absent sufficient factual allegations about the scope of the RA’s employment and “whether any actions or inactions alleged … were within the scope of those duties,” and thus, allowed plaintiff’s tort claims to proceed, with leave for defendants to re-raise the defense at a later stage of the case.  

Decision & Judgment annulling the determination of the University Appeals Committee. Petitioner, a student at Stony Brook University, sought review of the University’s administrative determination after a University appeals committee affirmed a finding that he was responsible for engaging in sexual conduct with another student without her affirmative consent. In annulling the determination, the court noted that the complainant alleged that she had consented, but that she was too intoxicated at the time to be able to make that decision. It then held that the Appeals Committee’s determination that petitioner had not obtained affirmative consent before engaging in the sexual conduct was not supported by substantial evidence. The court, accordingly, vacated the penalties imposed and directed that references to the finding be expunged from petitioner’s academic record.