286 F. Supp. 3d 566
S.D. Ill.2017Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Novio, an NYAA MFA alum (attended 2013–2015), alleges repeated sexist remarks, unwanted touching/hugging, and sexualized conduct by Professor Wade Schuman while she was a student.
- Several other female students complained to NYAA administrators about Schuman; Novio supported those complaints and later joined three students in filing suit against NYAA, NYAA Holdings, and Schuman.
- After joining the action, Novio alleges retaliatory conduct: faculty (including Bowland) refused recommendations, the alumni association excluded her communications, and NYAA officials discouraged her attendance at school events.
- Novio sued under Title IX, the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL, and for breach of contract; defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The Court (Sweet, U.S.D.J.): granted in part and denied in part — key holdings: Title IX hostile‑environment claim dismissed for failure to plead actual notice to officials about harassment of Novio specifically; Title IX retaliation claim survives; NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims survive in part (retaliation survives; individual/state discrimination claims dismissed in part); breach of contract dismissed for failure to identify specific contractual promises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX hostile educational environment | Schuman's repeated sexual comments/touching created an objectively hostile environment that NYAA failed to remedy | NYAA lacked actual knowledge of harassment against Novio specifically and thus cannot be liable | Dismissed: plaintiff plausibly alleges hostile environment but fails to plead actual knowledge by an official with remedial authority as to Novio herself |
| Title IX retaliation | Novio joined suit/supporting complaints and suffered adverse actions (denied references, exclusion from events) as retaliation | Defendants say they did not condone retaliatory acts and the acts occurred after enrollment ended | Survived: pleadings give a minimal plausible inference of retaliatory motive; claim may proceed |
| NYSHRL discrimination & individual liability | NYSHRL covers education corporations/associations and individual aiding/abetting; defendants denied differential treatment | Defendants: NYAA/NYAA Holdings not "public accommodations"; NYSHRL §296(4) limits application; individuals cannot be liable under certain sections | Dismissed as to state-law sex discrimination claims against NYAA, NYAA Holdings, Kratz, Schuman (statutory limits/notice defects); retaliation claims under NYSHRL against both institutional and individual defendants survive |
| Breach of contract | NYAA promised a harassment-free environment, prompt response, Title IX coordinator, and career services | Defendants: no specific contractual promises alleged | Dismissed: complaint fails to identify specific bulletins/handbook promises necessary to state a contractual claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and Rule 12(b)(6) foundations)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX hostile‑environment framework and school liability standard)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. School Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (actual notice and deliberate indifference requirement under Title IX)
- Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 2001) (hostile environment analysis in workplace/educational setting)
- Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (physically threatening conduct distinguishing actionable harassment)
- Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d 1170 (2d Cir. 1993) (Rule 12(b)(6) — accept complaint facts and inferences)
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (documents considered on a 12(b)(6) motion)
- Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999) (conversion to summary judgment if court considers materials beyond complaint)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (Title IX/retaliation pleading context and standards)
- Irrera v. Humpherys, 859 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2017) (alumnus may state Title IX retaliation claim)