Doe v. Sarah Lawrence College, 453 F.Supp.3d 653

Background

Oct. 6–9, 2017: Plaintiff ("Jane Doe") alleges she was drugged and sexually assaulted by a fellow student ("Robert"). On Oct. 9 she met with SLC Title IX staff, requested confidentiality and declined a No‑Contact Order; she and a friend left believing a formal complaint had been filed.
Shortly after the Oct. 9 meeting, Dean Green allegedly informed Robert of the allegation; Robert began calling/texting and campus rumors circulated, and Plaintiff’s mental health and academics deteriorated.
Mid–November 2017: SLC faculty/deans confronted Plaintiff about missed work, pressured her into medical leave and to leave campus quickly; on Nov. 21 she attempted suicide and was hospitalized.
Dec. 12, 2017: Plaintiff learned SLC had not treated the Oct. 9 report as a formal complaint; she then formally requested an investigation. SLC’s investigation/hearings (Jan–June 2018) ultimately found Robert not responsible after two hearings and appeals.
Administrative context: OCR had previously investigated SLC (2013–2018) and entered a 2018 resolution agreement finding procedural noncompliance and requiring revised Title IX grievance procedures and training.
Procedural posture: Plaintiff sued under Title IX and assorted state tort/contract theories; defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Court denied dismissal as to six claims (Title IX deliberate indifference, hostile environment, retaliation; breach of contract; negligence; negligent infliction of emotional distress) and granted dismissal as to the plaintiff’s standalone respondeat superior claim. Defendants must answer within 30 days.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Title IX deliberate indifference	SLC acted with clearly unreasonable deliberate indifference by mishandling Oct. 9 report, informing accused, failing to explain rights/options, and delaying/deficient investigation	SLC argues it was not clearly unreasonable because an investigation and disciplinary process began after the formal Dec. 12 complaint; plaintiff never filed a formal complaint on Oct. 9	Survives 12(b)(6): allegations plausibly state deliberate indifference given rushed meeting, disclosure to accused, and plaintiff’s reasonable belief a formal report was filed
Title IX hostile environment	SLC’s responses and campus reaction (harassment, rumors, academic penalties, forced removal) created a sex‑based hostile educational environment	SLC contends plaintiff failed to show harassment motivated by sex and that conduct was not severe/pervasive	Survives 12(b)(6): totality of allegations plausibly support subjective and objective hostile environment and inference of sex‑based discrimination
Title IX retaliation	After reporting, plaintiff suffered adverse school actions (pressure to leave, academic consequences) with close temporal proximity supporting causation	SLC posits legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for academic/administrative actions and emphasizes timing/absence of formal Oct. 9 complaint	Survives 12(b)(6): facts plausibly support prima facie retaliation (protected activity, knowledge, adverse action, causal link)
State law claims (breach of contract, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress)	SLC breached implied contractual policies and duties by failing to handle Title IX complaint per its policies; owed special duties once it undertook to investigate and provide accommodations; conduct caused severe emotional harm	SLC argues absence of a special duty and that general policy statements cannot support contract claim	Survives 12(b)(6): complaint pleads specific policy‑based breaches, plausible special duty and causation for negligence and NIED claims
Respondeat superior (standalone)	Plaintiff pleads supervisory liability/theory of vicarious liability for officials’ conduct	Defendants assert respondeat superior is not an independent cause of action	Dismissed as an independent claim (may be invoked as a theory attached to underlying claims)

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim above speculative level)
Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX deliberate indifference standard for peer sexual harassment)
Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81 (Title IX hostile‑environment framework and implied contract principles)
Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y., 352 F.3d 733 (hostile‑environment factors and analysis)
Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (pleading discriminatory intent in campus disciplinary context)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile‑workplace factors applied by analogy)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (pleading minimal plausible inference of discriminatory motive at pleading stage)
DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (when documents are "integral" to a complaint for Rule 12(d) purposes)
Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337 (elements of breach of contract pleading)