1:24-cv-00839
S.D.N.Y.Sep 16, 2025Background
- Kamran Khodakhah, former chair of Einstein’s Neuroscience Dept., challenges multiple investigations and sanctions by Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore, alleging Title IX discrimination, retaliation, and various state-law claims.
- Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky recommended (R&R) permitting claims tied to the “chair investigation” to proceed but dismissing other claims, including two Title IX investigations and claims against individual defendants (Castillo, Jordan, Tomaselli).
- The chair investigation examined Khodakhah’s fitness as chair and was not conducted under Title IX procedures; the R&R found plausible procedural irregularities specific to that investigation.
- Title IX investigations concerned alleged conduct from 2017–2018; the R&R and the district court concluded the 2018 Title IX policy applied (2020 Rule not retroactive to pre-August 14, 2020 conduct).
- The court rejected claims that interim sanctions and reliance on the chair-investigation findings were procedurally tainted, and found plaintiff failed to plead deliberate indifference, protected activity for retaliation, or viable NYSHRL/NYCHRL aiding-and-abetting, contract, or related tort claims (except to the extent tied to the chair investigation).
- The court granted dismissal of most claims (and Tomaselli’s motion) but allowed Khodakhah leave to seek to amend by a deadline, requiring a proposed amended complaint and memorandum showing non-futility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Title IX policy to investigations | 2018 policy should not govern; later (2020/2022) policies should apply | 2018 policy applies to alleged conduct in 2017–2018; 2020 Rule not retroactive | 2018 policy applies to Title IX investigations; application does not support erroneous-outcome claim |
| Procedural irregularities in Title IX investigations and interim sanctions | Interim campus ban and reliance on chair investigation were irregular and tainted proceedings | Policies authorized interim sanctions; reliance on chair investigation was permissible | Interim sanctions and use of chair-investigation findings were not shown to be irregular |
| Deliberate indifference | Officials ignored multiple reports that accusers lied; delay in retaliation investigation shows sham process | Investigators considered evidence; no facts show the school failed to investigate or misinform plaintiff | Failure to plead deliberate indifference; alleged delays do not amount to sham or non-response |
| Retaliation (Title IX, NYSHRL, NYCHRL) | Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and was retaliated against | Plaintiff did not plead protected activity or causation | Retaliation claims dismissed for failure to allege protected activity |
| State/local discrimination and aiding-and-abetting claims | NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims should be broader than federal standard; Tomaselli aided and abetted | Plaintiff failed to plead disparate treatment or principal discrimination; Tomaselli did not participate in discriminatory decisionmaking | NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims dismissed except those arising from chair investigation; aiding-and-abetting claims dismissed |
| Contract and related claims (breach, implied covenant, promissory estoppel, tortious interference) | Title IX policies and an interim funding letter created contractual or quasi-contractual obligations | Policies not incorporated into employment contract; no breach pleaded; tort claims fail without underlying breach | Contract-based claims dismissed; related claims duplicative or inadequately pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S.) (deliberate indifference framework in Title IX peer-misconduct context)
- Ware v. Univ. of Vermont & State Agric. Coll., 722 F. Supp. 3d 379 (D. Vt.) (context for allegations that procedural delay may show deficient response)
- Nezaj v. PS450 Bar & Rest., 719 F. Supp. 3d 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (aiding-and-abetting in NY human-rights law requires principal discrimination)
- Baylis v. Marriott Corp., 906 F.2d 874 (2d Cir. 1990) (tortious interference requires proof of an underlying contract breach)