Faiaz v. Colgate University
64 F. Supp. 3d 336
N.D.N.Y.2014Background
- In spring 2013, Colgate University disciplined plaintiff for multiple incidents involving two female students; 2011–2013 conduct includes alleged pushings and related investigations.
- CU campus safety investigated the complaints, issued statements, and scheduled a disciplinary hearing.
- Plaintiff was placed on interim suspension, detained in Curtis Hall basement-like confinement, and later allowed home options or Skype/phone participation for the hearing.
- A disciplinary hearing was held April 2, 2013; expulsion was decided and appealed; appeal denied.
- After expulsion, plaintiff faced visa termination issues and travel/immigration concerns; other CU officials were involved, including Brogan, Taylor, Khan, Nelson, and others.
- Plaintiff asserts fourteen causes of action including violations of Title VI/IX, §1981/1983/1985/1986, NY HRL, NY Constitution, and state tort claims, against CU and several CU employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1983 claim against CU officers states state action | Brogan/Cook/Tucker acted under color of state law via campus policing functions | CU officers acted as private university personnel; no state action | Fourth cause dismissed; no state action established for those officers. |
| Whether intracorporate conspiracy applies to §1985/1986 claims | Alleged discrimination aimed at plaintiff’s nationality; not a single act | Intracorporate doctrine bars conspiracies within a single entity | Fifth and Sixth causes dismissed due to intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. |
| Whether false imprisonment claim survives against university officers | Curtis Hall confinement and threats limited mobility; alleged coercive elements | Consent or choice to stay negates false imprisonment; factual dispute | False imprisonment claim survives at pleading stage; unresolved facts require further development. |
| Whether contract claim (breach of implied contract/failure to observe procedures) survives | CU failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures; entitlement to remedies | University substantially complied; claims fail as to standard | Tenth/eleventh contract claims dismissed for lack of plausible contractual breach. |
| Whether IIED and certain individual defendants may be liable | Aggregate conduct constitutes outrageous behavior | No extreme/outrageous conduct; duplicative of false imprisonment claim | IIED claim dismissed as duplicative; individual defendants largely dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausibility on face; reject conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (threadbare recitals not enough; require plausible claims)
- L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2011) (emails attached to answer considered as exhibits under Rule 10(c))
- Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1946) (company town with state-like police power; state action analysis context)
- Girard v. 94th Street & Fifth Ave. Corp., 530 F.2d 66 (2d Cir. 1976) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrine discussed in multi-actor settings)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1982) (color of state law as state action standard)
- Prowisor v. Bon-Ton, Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (private security not automatically state actor; exceptions apply)
- Yuan v. Tops Mkt., 2012 WL 4491106 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) (distinguishes university security state-action issues (WL not cited if unavailable))