Farzinpour v. Berklee College of Music, 516 F.Supp.3d 33

Background

Peyman Farzinpour, an associate professor at Berklee, was placed on administrative leave after a student alleged sexual harassment; he denied the allegations and said the student had propositioned him.
Berklee’s Equity Policy and Relationships Policy govern student–faculty conduct and promise investigations that are "thorough, impartial, and fair." Faculty appointments also reference a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
The Title IX investigator found Farzinpour responsible for sexual harassment (Dec. 13, 2019) and imposed sanctions including a 30-day unpaid suspension, bans on certain meetings and facility use, and a final written warning; his appeal and a CBA grievance were denied.
Farzinpour reported the student for harassment and repeatedly complained to Berklee about perceived gender bias in the investigation; he later told students in class that the process was unfair and defended himself publicly.
Farzinpour was terminated on April 2, 2020; he sued asserting (inter alia) a Title IX erroneous-outcome claim, Title VII and state-law retaliation claims, and several state-law contract and tort claims. Berklee moved to dismiss.
The court denied dismissal of the Title IX and retaliation claims but dismissed Farzinpour’s state-law claims for breach of contract, implied covenant (basic fairness), estoppel, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (some as §301-preempted; negligence claims unopposed).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employees may pursue Title IX employment-discrimination claims (or whether Title VII preempts them)	Lipsett and other precedents allow employees to bring Title IX claims for sex discrimination in educational settings	Title VII preempts employment-discrimination claims; Title IX was intended for students	Court denied dismissal: follows majority view that employees can pursue Title IX claims (Title VII does not preempt here)
Whether Farzinpour plausibly alleges retaliation under Title VII and Mass. law	His reports of the student and complaints about biased process were protected; termination followed soon after his protected statements	Berklee says no plausible causal link between protected activity and adverse actions	Court denied dismissal: temporal proximity and pleaded facts sufficiently allege causation at pleading stage
Whether breach-of-contract and implied covenant (basic fairness) claims are preempted by LMRA §301 because the CBA incorporates the Equity Policy	Equity Policy is a separate college policy applicable to all and thus creates contractual rights independent of the CBA	The CBA expressly incorporates the Equity Policy and governs discipline/grievances, so §301 preempts state-law contract claims	Court allowed dismissal: state-law contract and implied covenant claims are §301-preempted because resolution requires interpreting the CBA
Whether estoppel, negligence, and negligent infliction claims survive	Estoppel and tort claims asserted; basic fairness claim tied to employment contract	Berklee: estoppel is preempted by §301; negligence claims either merit dismissal or are unopposed	Court dismissed estoppel as preempted; dismissed negligence and negligent infliction claims (plaintiff did not oppose those dismissals)

Key Cases Cited

Lipsett v. Univ. of P.R., 864 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1988) (recognizing Title IX employment-context claims and applying Title VII standard)
Doe v. Trs. of Bos. Coll., 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018) (articulating "erroneous outcome" theory under Title IX)
Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr. v. Doe, 850 F.3d 545 (3d Cir. 2017) (holding employees may bring Title IX employment claims)
Preston v. Va. ex rel. New River Cmty. Coll., 31 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 1994) (permitting employee Title IX claims)
Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (state-law claim preemption test: whether resolution requires interpreting collective-bargaining agreement)
O'Donnell v. Boggs, 611 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2010) (discussing §301 preemption and federal jurisdiction over CBA-based claims)
Flibotte v. Pa. Truck Lines, Inc., 131 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 1997) (test for when §301 preempts state-law claims)
Cloud v. Trs. of Bos. Univ., 720 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1983) (basic-fairness framework for judicial review of school disciplinary proceedings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
Bedard v. Roger Williams Univ., 989 F. Supp. 94 (D.R.I. 1997) (recognizing private Title IX claims by employees)
Grandison v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2007) (finding contract- and good-faith claims preempted where CBA governed discipline)