440 F.Supp.3d 158
N.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiff (John Doe) and RP were acquaintances from church who had three sexual encounters in Oct–Nov 2016; Plaintiff alleges all were consensual and RP’s accounts later became inconsistent.
- RP reported a sexual assault to campus/public safety on Nov. 15, 2016; SPD interviewed both parties and later closed the criminal investigation.
- Syracuse issued a temporary No Contact Order (allegedly without timely written notice to Plaintiff), then initiated a university Title IX investigation on Jan. 25, 2017 (the day after an OCR visit to campus).
- Investigator Bernerd Jacobson (using “trauma‑informed” techniques) found RP credible; a University Conduct Board found Plaintiff responsible and he was expelled near the completion of his master’s degree.
- Plaintiff sued alleging Title IX, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence/gross negligence, and violation of the New York State constitutional due process clause; Defendants moved to partially dismiss.
- The district court granted in part and denied in part: several contract‑based claims survived (narrowly), while the implied‑covenant, tort claims, and state‑due‑process claim were dismissed; Title IX claims against the Board of Trustees were withdrawn/dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consideration of documents on 12(b)(6) | Court should not consider exhibits not incorporated by reference | Court may consider documents integral to complaint and those referenced | Court considered Jacobson Report, Board and Appeal opinions and a Dec. 1 email as integral; declined to consider other emails and declined to consider the 2016–17 Handbook due to factual dispute |
| Title IX claims as to Board of Trustees | Board is liable under Title IX | Plaintiff failed to allege Board received federal funds | Plaintiff withdrew those claims; Title IX claims against the Board dismissed |
| Breach of contract — No Contact Order (Part 4.7) | Syracuse failed to provide written copy to Plaintiff and kept order secret, causing inadvertent violation | Syracuse says Plaintiff was notified (and SPD directed secrecy) | Allegation that Syracuse breached the specific No Contact Order notice requirement survives |
| Breach of contract — Written notice of charges (Part 10.15) | Plaintiff never received the written complaint/charges as required | Syracuse points to investigation report and other notice | Court: specific provision requiring written notice of charges is concrete; Plaintiff plausibly alleged breach (survives) |
| Breach of contract — Delay (Part 10.21, 60‑day rule) | Process took ~107 days without notice of delay or reason | Syracuse contends delays were justified | Court: 60‑day timeline is specific; Plaintiff plausibly alleged breach for delay (survives) |
| Breach of contract — Preponderance standard (Part 10.17 / Title IX policy) | Syracuse failed to actually apply preponderance and made irrational credibility findings | Syracuse says Board applied the preponderance standard and credibility is for the Board | Court: preponderance is an express contractual right; allegations that process was result‑driven suffice at pleading stage (survives) |
| Breach of contract — Fairness provisions / general notice | Plaintiff relies on Bill of Rights/fundamental fairness and "adequate notice" | Syracuse: these are general policy promises not actionable | Court: generalized fairness promises are non‑actionable; breach‑of‑contract claim dismissed to the extent it rests on those broad guarantees |
| Breach of implied covenant | Covenant breached independently of contract | Plaintiff seeks to plead in addition to contract claim | Court: New York forbids separate implied‑covenant claim duplicative of contract; dismissed as redundant |
| Negligence / Gross negligence | Syracuse owed a duty of care in disciplinary process; conduct was careless/reckless | Defendants: New York does not recognize negligent investigation/prosecution claims against private universities; Clery/ accreditation do not create private duties | Court: no recognized duty giving rise to tort liability here; negligence and gross negligence claims dismissed |
| State constitutional due process (N.Y. Const. art I §6) | "Enough is Enough" statute and state oversight make Syracuse a state actor; Plaintiff entitled to state‑level due process | Defendants: private university proceedings are not state action merely because of statutory compliance | Court: Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient state involvement; state‑due‑process claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) (documents integral to the complaint may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6))
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (when extrinsic documents are integral/relied upon, court may consider them)
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy, 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2011) (terms of implied student‑university contract are in bulletins/handbooks and require specific promises)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (scope of materials courts may consider on a motion to dismiss)
- Sharrock v. Dell Buick‑Cadillac, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 1978) (state‑action test factors for New York due‑process claims)