244 F. Supp. 3d 345
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- In 2013 Emma Sulkowicz accused Paul Nungesser of rape; Columbia’s hearing panel found Nungesser “not responsible” after a lengthy investigation and his appeal was denied.
- Sulkowicz continued public activism (the “Mattress Project”), media statements, and published pieces; some campus publications and individuals identified or made Nungesser easily identifiable.
- Nungesser alleges Columbia and several employees (Bollinger, Kessler, Vu‑Daniel, Hirsch) condoned or participated in a campaign that defamed and harassed him, harmed his education, career prospects, and safety, and approved academic credit for the Mattress Project.
- Nungesser brought claims: Title IX, New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), breach of contract, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Columbia moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
- The court evaluated whether the SAC plausibly pleaded gender‑based harassment/deprivation of educational access under Title IX and related state claims, and whether contractual promises were breached.
- The court concluded the SAC failed to cure deficiencies identified earlier and dismissed all claims with prejudice as futile to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Columbia is liable under Title IX for student‑on‑student gender‑based harassment (deliberate indifference) | Sulkowicz’s public statements/activism (calling him “rapist,” mattress protests, faculty endorsements) created a gender‑based hostile environment and Columbia was deliberately indifferent | Speech/activism was about alleged sexual conduct, not discrimination because of sex; Columbia balanced free speech/privacy and did not act clearly unreasonably | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead harassment "on the basis of sex" (conduct tied to alleged sexual act, not to male gender), so no Title IX liability |
| Whether Nungesser was deprived of access to educational opportunities (Davis severe/pervasive standard) | Media/social harassment and campus protests materially interfered with his education, safety, internships, and career events | Allegations show limited class incidents, no systemic or severe deprivation (grades, enrollment, graduation unaffected); many actions post‑graduation or off‑campus outside Columbia's control | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment that deprived access to education |
| Whether NY Human Rights Law claims survive where Title IX fails | NYHRL should be evaluated like Title IX; Columbia’s conduct created discrimination | Same as Title IX defense; no sex‑based motive or systemic deprivation alleged | Dismissed with prejudice — NYHRL claims fail for the same reasons as Title IX |
| Whether Columbia breached contractual promises or committed other torts (breach of contract, GBL § 349, IIED) | University policies (confidentiality, anti‑retaliation, fair process, presumption of innocence) and statements created enforceable promises; actions caused emotional distress and deceptive consumer practices | Policies are general statements, discretionary language (may/result/expected), not specific contractual promises; alleged conduct falls into defamation sphere and not extreme/or consumer‑oriented deception | Dismissed with prejudice — policies are non‑specific, no enforceable discrete promises, §349 not consumer‑oriented, IIED not extreme/outrageous; many harms are defamation‑type and not pleaded as such |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (standards for pleading Title IX hostile‑environment deliberate indifference claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly state a claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading requirement)
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX deliberate indifference framework; harassment must be severe, pervasive, and deny access to education)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (school liability standard for teacher‑on‑student harassment and notice/response requirements)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (private right of action under Title IX exists)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (harassment must support inference of discrimination on the basis of sex)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir.) (Title IX and Title VII analogies for discrimination and disciplinary actions)