286 F.Supp.3d 566
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Sarah Novio, an NYAA MFA alumna (Sept 2013–May 2015), alleges pervasive sexualized comments, touching, and favoritism by professor Wade Schuman that created a hostile educational environment interfering with her studies.
- Other students complained to NYAA administrators about Schuman; Novio supported those complaints and later joined a formal claim with three other students against NYAA, NYAA Holdings, and Schuman.
- Novio alleges that after she participated in complaints/litigation, she was retaliated against: faculty (including Bowland) refused recommendations, NYAA discouraged her attendance at events, and alumni communications ceased.
- Novio sued under Title IX, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and for breach of contract; defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The court accepted Novio’s factual allegations as true for pleading purposes, denied consideration of extrinsic exhibits, and applied plausibility pleading standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX — hostile educational environment (sex discrimination) | Schuman's repeated sexual comments/touching created an objectively hostile environment altering Novio’s education | NYAA lacked actual knowledge of harassment directed at Novio and did not exhibit deliberate indifference; some allegations time-barred | Court: Novio plausibly alleged a hostile environment as to Schuman, but Title IX claims against NYAA and NYAA Holdings dismissed for failure to plead actual knowledge and adequate notice specific to Novio; conduct before 7/25/2014 is time-barred |
| Title IX — retaliation | Novio alleges she joined other students in formal claims and was thereafter denied recommendations, networking, and events | Defendants contend they did not encourage/approve retaliation, suffered no damages, and retaliation occurred after Novio was no longer a student | Court: Retaliation claim under Title IX against NYAA and NYAA Holdings survives (pleaded minimal inference; temporal proximity and alleged adverse actions) |
| NYSHRL — discrimination & individual liability | Novio seeks state-law claims against NYAA, NYAA Holdings, Kratz, Schuman, Bowland for discrimination and aiding/abetting | Defendants: NYAA and NYAA Holdings are not "places of public accommodation" and certain NYSHRL provisions don’t impose individual liability; many claims time-barred | Court: NYSHRL discrimination claims dismissed for same deficiencies as Title IX and because NYAA/NYAA Holdings are not "places of public accommodation"; individual discrimination claims dismissed; NYSHRL retaliation claims survive against institutional and individual defendants (adequately pled participation, knowledge, adverse action, causal link) |
| NYCHRL — discrimination and retaliation | Novio asserts broader City-law claims; NYCHRL construed more liberally and may impose provider liability on NYAA | Defendants concede graduate school is a public accommodation under NYCHRL; challenge sufficiency as to institutional and some individual defendants | Court: NYCHRL claims for discrimination and retaliation survive as to Schuman and survive generally under NYCHRL’s liberal standard; claims against Kratz, NYAA, NYAA Holdings for "less well" treatment dismissed for lack of pleaded facts showing gender-based disparate treatment |
| Breach of contract | Novio alleges NYAA promised a harassment-free learning environment, Title IX coordinator, non-retaliation, and career services and breached those promises | Defendants: no specific contract or promise identified in complaint | Court: Breach of contract claim dismissed for failure to identify specific contractual promises or documents (leave to replead granted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX hostile educational environment and school liability standard)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. School Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (school liability under Title IX requires actual knowledge and deliberate indifference)
- Papelino v. Albany, 633 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2011) (applying Title IX standards and deliberate indifference framework)
- Irrera v. Humphreys, 859 F.3d 196 (2d Cir.) (alumnus may state Title IX retaliation claim)