Irrera v. Humpherys
695 F. App'x 626
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. Joseph Irrera, a doctoral graduate of the University of Rochester’s Eastman School of Music, sued Eastman and Prof. Douglas Humpherys alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title IX, the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), and the New York Civil Rights Law (NYCRL).
- Core allegations: an alleged unwanted sexual touching during a 2010 lesson and retaliatory failing by a recital panel in 2011; later alleged intermittent sexual gestures by Humpherys (winks, blown kisses, leers) between 2012–2014.
- Irrera filed suit on June 24, 2015; Title IX claims based on 2010–2011 events fell outside New York’s three-year statute of limitations unless a “continuing violation” exception applied.
- District Court dismissed Title IX, NYHRL, and NYCRL claims as time-barred or not plausibly alleging a hostile educational environment; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state/common-law claims.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed dismissal of discrimination/hostile-environment claims (Title IX, NYHRL, NYCRL) but reversed in part and remanded as to retaliation (addressed in a separate opinion filed the same day).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether earlier (2010–2011) acts are timely under a continuing-violation theory | Irrera: later 2012–2014 gestures show a continuing pattern that makes earlier acts timely | Defendants: incidents are discrete and separated by years; no continuing violation | Court: No continuing violation; earlier acts barred by 3-year limitations (affirmed) |
| Whether 2012–2014 facial/gestural conduct states a stand-alone hostile educational-environment claim | Irrera: winks/leers/blown kisses were part of a hostile environment | Defendants: conduct was sporadic/insufficiently severe or pervasive | Court: Alleged gestures are isolated and not sufficiently severe/pervasive; claim dismissed (affirmed) |
| Whether Title IX liability requires actual knowledge and inadequate institutional response | Irrera: Eastman had awareness and failed to act | Defendants: no effective notice or remedial duty shown | Court: Reiterates standard (actual knowledge + inadequate response) but found timely harassment allegations lacking; institutional-liability analysis moot for time-barred acts (affirmed as applied) |
| Whether post-graduation events support a plausible retaliation claim | Irrera: post-graduation adverse acts were retaliatory | Defendants: post-graduation events not plausibly retaliatory | Court: Retaliation ruling reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings (see separate opinion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (Title IX hostile-environment standard; institutional liability requires official with actual knowledge and failure to respond)
- Curto v. Edmundson, 392 F.3d 502 (2d Cir.) (three-year statute of limitations for Title IX claims in New York)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S.) (discrete acts are time-barred unless part of a continuing violation; hostile-environment claims may encompass related prior incidents)
- McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (incidents within limitations may permit consideration of earlier incidents only if sufficiently related)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir.) (isolated acts, absent seriousness, do not meet severity/pervasiveness threshold for hostile-environment claims)
- Operating Local 649 Annuity Trust Fund v. Smith Barney Fund Mgmt. LLC, 595 F.3d 86 (2d Cir.) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6): de novo, accept well-pleaded allegations and draw inferences for plaintiff)