JEWS AT HAVERFORD v. THE CORPORATION OF HAVERFORD COLLEGE
2:24-cv-02044
| E.D. Pa. | Jan 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Jews at Haverford, Ally Landau, and two anonymous students) sued Haverford College, alleging the college permitted and perpetuated antisemitic discrimination and a hostile campus environment following the events in Israel and Gaza in October 2023.
- Plaintiffs claim violations of Title VI (hostile educational environment due to antisemitism) and breach of various college contractual obligations, including social media policies, poster policies, expressive freedom, and non-discrimination statements.
- The amended complaint was sprawling, unfocused, and failed to clearly relate facts to legal elements; the court struggled to identify specifically pled actionable conduct.
- The court considered the sufficiency of plaintiffs' Title VI claim and breach of contract claims, along with standing (both for individual students and the association, Jews at Haverford).
- The matter came before the court on Haverford’s motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) (jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing | Plaintiffs suffered cognizable injuries redressable in law | Plaintiffs lack sufficient injury or facts for standing | Plaintiffs have standing at this stage but will be scrutinized if amended |
| Title VI Hostile Environment | Haverford allowed and was indifferent to antisemitic acts | Incidents not severe/pervasive, no deliberate indifference shown | Dismissed: Complaint lacked factual specifics on notice and indifference |
| Aggregation of Harassment Claims | Plaintiffs can aggregate collective experiences | Aggregation only if each plaintiff knew of all incidents alleged | Dismissed: No specific pleading of each plaintiff's awareness of all incidents |
| Breach of Contract (various policies) | Haverford breached policies creating enforceable promises | Policies do not create actionable or specific contractual duties | Dismissed: No specific actionable promises or resulting damages pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (Jews can claim racial discrimination under federal law)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (standard for school liability under hostile environment theory)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (school liability requires actual notice and deliberate indifference)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (test for associational standing)
- Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (Title VI hostile environment theory in the Third Circuit)
- Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. Of The Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418 (interpretation of university contracts)
- Guy v. Liederbach, 459 A.2d 744 (third party enforcement of contracts)