485 F. App'x 465
2d Cir.2012Background
- Hyman, proceeding pro se, sued Cornell University in the Northern District of New York under Title IX and New York state law.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in a July 1, 2011 Memorandum-Decision and Order.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit conducts de novo review of a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, accepting factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Hyman’s complaint alleged Cornell sanctioned her and failed to penalize Greenwood for retaliation, constituting Title IX discrimination, though she later asserted a retaliation theory.
- Hyman moved to amend to add a Title IX retaliation claim against Cornell, but the district court denied leave to amend.
- On appeal, Hyman abandoned any challenge to the denial of leave to amend, and the court addressed only the asserted discrimination theory and the proposed retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title IX claim was properly analyzed as discrimination. | Hyman asserted retaliation and discrimination theories under Title IX. | District court properly treated the claim as discrimination under Title IX. | Affirmed; claim treated as discrimination, not retaliation. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend. | Hyman sought to amend to include retaliation and hostile acts allegations. | Court did not abuse discretion; arguments not pursued on appeal. | Affirmed; abandonment of amendment challenge. |
| Whether the amended allegations would state a plausible Title IX retaliation claim. | Emails showed retaliation via timing and actions against her. | Emails do not plausibly show retaliatory motive; readings are implausible. | Affirmed; even crediting retaliation theory, allegations insufficient to survive dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2010) (de novo standard for reviewing pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (court may disregard legal conclusions; requires facial plausibility)
- LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (principles for appellate briefing and waiver of claims)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 412 F.3d 418 (2d Cir. 2005) (arguments not raised below may be deemed waived on appeal)
- Virgilio v. City of New York, 407 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2005) (avoid considering new arguments raised for the first time on appeal)