Irrera v. Humpherys
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10610
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Irrera, an Eastman School of Music DMA graduate, alleged his piano teacher and department chair Douglas Humpherys made unwanted sexual advances (touching, suggestive gestures) which Irrera rejected.
- Humpherys evaluated Irrera in two required solo recitals; after rejection, Irrera received failing grades on both recitals though other faculty told him he performed well. Humpherys also reportedly threatened to “make his life a living hell” if Irrera lodged a written complaint.
- After graduation, Irrera applied to 28 academic teaching positions and received no interview offers; he alleges this was due to negative references from Humpherys and Eastman contacts.
- Irrera also contends Eastman terminated his longstanding internship at Eastman Community Music School (ECMS) after graduation in retaliation for his harassment complaints, while other DMA graduates retained internships.
- The District Court dismissed Irrera’s retaliation claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as speculative for lacking allegations that Humpherys actually gave negative references; the Second Circuit vacated in part and remanded, finding the retaliation claim (including ECMS internship) plausibly pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations plausibly plead retaliation based on negative references after complaining of sexual harassment | Irrera: applying to 28 schools with no interviews is plausibly due to negative references from his former chair who threatened retaliation | Humpherys/University: Complaint is speculative; plaintiff fails to allege any school actually received a negative reference | Held: Plausible — dismissal was error; circumstances (threats, chair status, non-disclosure of references) make retaliation inference reasonable |
| Whether denial/termination of ECMS internship plausibly pleads retaliation | Irrera: internship termination after complaint, while peers retained internships and handbook permitted post-graduation internships, supports retaliatory motive | Defendants: Termination lawful due to graduation; no causal link to complaint | Held: Plausible — complaint alleges facts undermining asserted non-retaliatory rationale, so claim survives pleading stage |
| Whether extraneous pre-limitations-period conduct may support timely retaliation claim | Irrera: prior conduct and context are relevant to support plausible inference of retaliation | Defendants: Older events beyond limitations should not support timely claim | Held: Relevant — some out-of-period facts can be considered for context and plausibility of timely claim |
| Whether district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state/common-law claims on remand | Irrera: plaintiff seeks reconsideration if federal claims survive | Defendants: District court previously declined supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims | Held: Remand court should reconsider exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in light of revived federal retaliation claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (older, more lenient pleading standard referenced for historical context)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established the modern plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarified application of plausibility standard; courts to use experience and common sense)
- Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003) (governs district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction)