834 F. Supp. 2d 77
N.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiff, a Cornell graduate student, sues under Title IX and NY Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law §40-c based on alleged harassment and retaliatory actions by Cornell and a faculty member.
- Plaintiff transferred to the Anthropology Department in 2004 with the support of Defendant Greenwood, who later faced allegations related to harassment by the Plaintiff’s emails.
- Plaintiff sent personally explicit and problematic emails to Greenwood in 2004; Greenwood thereafter sought to limit contact and ultimately invoked a no-contact directive.
- Cornell conducted investigations and proceedings (OWDELQ, JA, University Hearing Board) resulting in sanctions against Plaintiff for violating the no-contact order; the process culminated in a finding against Plaintiff and a reprimand.
- In 2006–2007 JA Grant and Greenwood were involved in communications about the case; Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with OWDELQ in April 2007; subsequent investigations concluded Plaintiff’s complaint was unfounded.
- Plaintiff exhausted internal university remedies; Defendants moved to dismiss, and Plaintiff moved to amend; the court granted the motion to dismiss and denied amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX claim viability | Plaintiff argues deliberate indifference and gender bias led to flawed outcome | Cornell did not ignore or mishandle proper complaints; no evidence of bias | Title IX claim dismissed |
| HRL retaliation claim viability | Protections against retaliation exist and were violated by investigation | No causal link between protected activity and adverse actions established | HRL §296(7) retaliation claim dismissed |
| Civil Rights Law §40-c claim viability | Discrimination/harassment under §40-c supported by HRL claim | No underlying HRL violation to support §40-c liability | §40-c claim dismissed |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims | State claims arising from same facts should be retained | Court may decline if federal claims dismissed | Court retained jurisdiction over state-law claims but later dismissed them on merits |
| Motion to amend | Amendment clarifies Title IX violation and related claims | Amendment would be futile given lack of plausible claims | Motion to amend denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y., 352 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2003) (Title IX discrimination and hostile environment standards in higher education)
- Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (causal or gender-based discrimination under Title IX)
- Curto v. Smith, 248 F.Supp.2d 132 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (requirement of particularized evidence for Title IX causal link)
- Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999) (deliberate indifference standard for retaliation-like claims)
- Bruneau v. South Kortright Cent. Sch. Dist., 163 F.3d 749 (2d Cir. 1998) (timeline/adequacy of remedial action in retaliation context)
- Kamen v. Rosa, 223 A.D.2d 433, 636 N.Y.S.2d 59 (1st Dep’t 1996) (causal connection in retaliation claims under NY HRL)
- Illiano v. Mineola Union Free Sch. Dist., 585 F.Supp.2d 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (HRL §40-c applicability to retaliation claims)
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (district court discretion on § 1367(c) supplemental jurisdiction)
- Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 889 F.2d 1248 (2d Cir. 1989) (summary judgment standards and related considerations (used for Rule 12(b)(6) analysis))