Manolov v. Borough of Manhattan Community College
952 F. Supp. 2d 522
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Manolov, a former BMCC nursing student, challenges the 2011-12 BMCC nursing program as deficient and discriminatory.
- Plaintiffs allegations include exam preparation, grading practices, and hostile environment allegedly targeted at white males.
- He claims complaints to BMCC were ignored, leading to failing Fall 2011 finals and enrollment difficulties in Spring 2012.
- He alleges specific conduct by Professors White and Boyle, including discriminatory and harassing treatment, contributing to his withdrawal.
- The district court granted BMCC’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss after adopting the magistrate judge’s report, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VI discrimination is plead adequately | Manolov asserts race-based discrimination by BMCC professors. | BMCC contends the pleadings show only conclusory assertions, not discriminatory intent. | Title VI claim dismissed for lack of plausible discriminatory intent. |
| Whether Title IX discrimination is plead adequately | Manolov claims gender-based discrimination by the College. | Discrimination claims are conclusory and lack facts showing sex-based intent. | Title IX claim dismissed for lack of factual basis for discrimination intent. |
| Whether due process under §1983 is plead adequately | BMCC deprived him of education without due process. | No cognizable property interest deprivation and no adequate redress alleged. | Due process claim dismissed as lacking plausible deprivation and redress. |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State-law breach and negligent supervision claims should proceed. | With federal claims dismissed, no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses state-law claims without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must contain plausible, non-conclusory facts)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir.1994) (discrimination claims require more than conclusory assertions)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1998) (damages for discrimination require institutional knowledge and response failure)
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires promulgated policy or custom causally linked to deprivation)
- Goonewardena v. New York, 475 F.Supp.2d 310 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (emphasizes notice and response requirements for discrimination claims against university)