317 F. Supp. 3d 803
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Novio attended the New York Academy of Art (NYAA) 2013–2015 and alleges persistent sexual comments and inappropriate touching by Professor Wade Schuman that created a hostile educational environment.
- Several students complained to NYAA administrators about Schuman; Novio supported those complaints and later joined formal claims against Schuman and NYAA.
- Novio alleges NYAA and its officials failed to respond adequately to complaints, and thereafter retaliated by shunning her and denying recommendations and career support.
- Novio pleads an implied breach-of-contract claim based on promises in NYAA's Student Handbook and Website: (a) an environment free of sex discrimination/harassment; (b) prompt response and corrective action for complaints; (c) designation of a trained Title IX coordinator; and (d) career services/job-placement support.
- NYAA moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the breach-of-contract claim; the court evaluated whether the alleged promises are sufficiently specific to form an enforceable contract and whether Novio pleaded how each promise was breached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Novio adequately pleaded existence of a contract via Handbook/Website | Handbook/Website made specific promises (Title IX coordinator, prompt response, career services) creating an implied contract | Novio failed to identify a contract or quote precise language; promises are too vague | Court: Sufficiently pleaded specific promises in Handbook/Website to establish a contract for some promises; not required to quote exact text at pleading stage |
| Whether promises alleged are enforceable "specified services" vs. nonactionable general policy | Promises to respond promptly, take immediate corrective action, designate a trained Title IX coordinator, and provide career services are concrete, specified commitments | Broad anti-discrimination statements are noncontractual policy statements | Court: Promises to provide an environment free of discrimination/harassment and not to retaliate are general policy and dismissed; promises to respond promptly, take action, designate Title IX coordinator, and provide career services survive dismissal |
| Whether Novio pleaded when/how NYAA breached specific promises | Novio alleged concrete breaches: officials failed to investigate or stop harassment, Kratz did not take corrective action, faculty refused recommendations and career support | NYAA argued allegations are conclusory and fail to identify specific breach conduct | Court: Allegations sufficiently identify when/how Academy breached the specific promises to survive Rule 12(b)(6) for the surviving contract theories |
| Scope of ruling and burden at pleading stage | Novio argued pleadings are sufficient and further factual development belongs at later stages | NYAA argued pleading deficiencies justify dismissal now | Court: Permitted partial contract claim to proceed but emphasized it makes no finding on merits—only sufficiency to proceed past pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Koch v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 699 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.) (pleadings assumed true on motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d 1170 (2d Cir.) (inferences drawn for pleader on 12(b)(6))
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir.) (documents incorporated by reference on motion to dismiss)
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (pleading on information and belief requires supporting facts)
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (alleged failure to investigate sexual-harassment complaint can state breach of contract)
- Gally v. Columbia Univ., 22 F. Supp. 2d 199 (S.D.N.Y.) (mere allegation of mistreatment without specific breached promise insufficient)
- Chira v. Columbia Univ., 289 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y.) (must identify when and how defendant breached specific contractual promise)