149 N.E.3d 758
Mass.2020Background
- Plaintiff, a first-year Northeastern student, attended a Halloween party hosted by a sophomore RA where she became intoxicated; another first-year student, A.G., escorted her back to their shared dorm and a sexual encounter occurred that the plaintiff later alleged was nonconsensual.
- RAs (one on duty, one off duty) and a dormitory proctor observed the plaintiff intoxicated at various points; students gave her water/crackers and offered escorts; plaintiff declined some offered assistance and later went with A.G.
- Northeastern police investigated, did not pursue criminal charges, and OSCCR charged A.G. with sexual assault; a Student Conduct Board (SCB) first found A.G. not responsible, an appeal/remand occurred, and on rehearing the SCB again exonerated A.G.
- Plaintiff sued Northeastern and several administrators asserting negligence (duty to protect, vicarious liability, negligent supervision/training), negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract (disciplinary process), MERA, and Title IX claims; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; the SJC affirmed, holding Northeastern owed no duty to prevent this assault because the assault was not reasonably foreseeable on the record, and that the university met any narrow duty for alcohol-related emergencies; other claims likewise failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether university owed duty under special student-university relationship to protect intoxicated student from third-party sexual assault | Northeastern had a special relationship and should have protected the plaintiff despite voluntary intoxication | Universities need not police consensual drinking; no duty arose because harm was not foreseeable here | Special relationship exists but no duty here — assault was not reasonably foreseeable on these facts; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether university owes duty to act when a student is imminently endangered by alcohol intoxication | University should be responsible for harms related to alcohol intoxication | Duty too broad; would require policing all student drinking | Court recognizes narrow duty: when university has actual knowledge student is so intoxicated and in imminent danger it must take reasonable measures; here duty threshold not met |
| Vicarious liability for RAs hosting/observing underage drinking and party conduct | RAs created unreasonable risk by hosting/allowing underage drinking, so university is liable vicariously | RAs’ subsequent responses were reasonable; no breach by RAs to impute liability | RAs acted reasonably under circumstances; no breach, so no vicarious liability for university |
| Breach of contract (student handbook/code & disciplinary process handling) | Northeastern breached its code (appeals handling, destroyed recording, unfair procedures) | University followed its code; Estabrook had authority; recording destruction complied with code and plaintiff declined earlier offers to review recording | No breach of contract; procedures and remedies comported with students’ reasonable expectations; summary judgment affirmed |
| Title IX (deliberate indifference & erroneous outcome) | University's response and training were deliberately indifferent; procedural irregularities suggest gender bias and erroneous outcome | University promptly investigated, offered accommodations, SCB process used preponderance standard and training was provided; no evidence of sex-based bias or educational deprivation | No deliberate indifference; no evidence of erroneous outcome or gender bias; plaintiff did not show deprivation of educational access — Title IX claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 389 Mass. 47 (1983) (recognizing special college–student relationship and duty to protect resident students from foreseeable third-party crimes)
- Dzung Duy Nguyen v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 479 Mass. 436 (2018) (duty analysis factors and limited duties in university context)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX deliberate-indifference framework requiring actual notice to an official with authority)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX: school response must not be clearly unreasonable to constitute deliberate indifference)
- Commerce Ins. Co. v. Ultimate Livery Serv., Inc., 452 Mass. 639 (2008) (voluntary intoxication not dispositive of duty analysis; foreseeability and reliance considerations)
- Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474 (2000) (student handbook/disciplinary procedures can form contractual obligations and are measured by students’ reasonable expectations)
- Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141 (2006) (existence of duty is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment)
- Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018) (standards for Title IX erroneous-outcome and deliberate-indifference claims)