Cases & Developments

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.   

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights filing with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. Through this action pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the Department shared the Final Rule on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. OIRA has 90 days to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before returning the proposed rule to the Department for publication in the Federal Register.   

Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a student at Princeton University, brought Title IX and contract claims against the University after he was found responsible for sexual misconduct in 2020, placed on probation for four months, and had a permanent notation placed on his transcript. He alleged that the University’s process was biased, particularly in its choice to believe his accuser’s account over the weight of his evidence, including “a large number of big, darkly colored hickeys on both sides of his neck,” suggesting that she was actually the aggressor. In dismissing his Title IX claim, the court found plaintiff’s assertion that the University harbored archaic assumptions misplaced, noting that on appeal it had found in his favor on several issues and reduced his sanction. In permitting his contract claim to proceed, the court found that plaintiff’s assertion of inconsistent credibility determinations and a decision not to interview a witness whose statement might have undermined his accuser’s credibility were sufficient to allege that the University did not provide an impartial investigation with unbiased and adequately retained investigative and hearing panels as required by the University’s policies.

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.