Cases & Developments

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, ten current and former female students at Loyola University of Chicago between 2012 and 2022, brought pre- and post-assault Title IX deliberate indifference claims against the University, alleging that the University underreported sexual assault statistics, had regular delays in processing Title IX complaints, engaged in lax enforcement of no-contact orders, and departed from its established procedures for Title IX hearings. Except for one plaintiff whose assault occurred overseas during a study abroad program, the court found the allegations sufficient for the pre-assault deliberate indifference claims to proceed. Though it credited information derived from a 2016 student newspaper article about underreporting of sexual assault cases toward the allegations of pre-assault deliberate indifference, the court found no allegation that plaintiffs were aware of the article at the time and declined to find at this stage that their claims accrued with the publication of the article. Though most of plaintiffs’ post-assault deliberate indifference claims were time barred, the court found allegations of delays, unenforced no-contact orders, and other departures from procedure sufficient to permit two plaintiffs to proceed. The court dismissed the negligence and contract claims of the remaining plaintiffs as insufficiently pled and time barred.   

Decision and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a student at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), brought Title IX and contract claims against RIT after he was suspended for nonconsensual sexual conduct. After an initial hearing found him responsible for the misconduct, plaintiff presented new evidence concerning the complainant’s credibility. A second hearing and subsequent appeal also found him responsible. In denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s contract claims, the court found sufficient evidence that the second hearing panel and appeals board (1) declined to consider evidence concerning the complainant’s credibility and (2) required plaintiff to prove that he had received affirmative consent, rather than the institution to prove he had not. It also found evidence raising questions concerning the second hearing panel’s impartiality, including related to guidance to the panel from the Title IX Coordinator, improper consideration of testimony from the first hearing, and a joke about plaintiff made among RIT officials during a break in the hearing that was nevertheless recorded in the hearing transcript. The court granted summary judgment in favor of RIT on plaintiff’s Title IX erroneous outcome and undue severity claims, however, finding he presented insufficient evidence that the procedural irregularities were based on sex bias.   

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.