Papelino v. Albany College of Pharmacy of Union University, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1386

Background

Papelino, Yu, and Basile, pharmacy students and roommates, faced a sexual harassment dispute with Professor Nowak at ACP/U of Albany.
Papelino reported Nowak's advances to Associate Dean White; White allegedly did not act promptly or investigate.
Around May 1998, Nowak accused the three students of cheating; a hearing led to findings of cheating and suspensions/expulsions.
The Third Department later held the cheating determinations were arbitrary and lacked a rational basis, prompting Article 78 proceedings.
After long procedural history, the district court granted summary judgment dismissing remaining claims; plaintiffs appealed.
The Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for trial on several claims including harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and negligent supervision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Quid pro quo harassment knowledge and indifference	Nowak's advances were known to White and the College; deliberate indifference shown by not acting.	Knowledge of harassment by a single administrator is insufficient; no causal link shown.	Triable issues exist on knowledge and indifference; jury could find liability.
Hostile environment harassment timeliness and continuity	Continuing violation doctrine and events within the limitations period show hostility.	Most alleged acts pre-date the period; not timely actionable.	District court erred; material facts on hostility and continuing conduct warrant trial.
Retaliation for protected activity	Protected complaint and subsequent adverse actions show retaliatory motive; proximity supports causation.	Actions could be warranted based on cheating allegations; knowledge shown only in isolated cases.	Triable issues as to knowledge, causation, and motive; retaliation claim survives summary judgment.
Breach of implied contract and good faith	University failed to investigate harassment and mishandled proceedings; breached implied contract to grant degree.	Academic decisions are entrusted to educators; limited judicial interference.	Genuine issues of fact exist; summary judgment improper on breach of contract.
Negligent supervision of university employees	College negligently supervised Nowak and mishandled honors proceedings, creating risk of torts.	No proof of foreseeability or unfitness; not liable for Nowak's harassment per se.	Issues of fact as to mismanagement of proceedings and potential unfitness; remand allowed.

Key Cases Cited

Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y., 352 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2003) (title IX liability requires actual knowledge and deliberate indifference)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1998) (knowledge and response standard for school liability)
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (hostile environment and deliberate indifference framework)
Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 1997) (Title IX principles align with Title VII for claims analysis)
Wills v. Brown Univ., 184 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1999) (tangible consequences in quid pro quo harassment)
Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 2001) (totality of circumstances in hostile environment analysis)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violation doctrine for hostile environment claims)
McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation standard and causation considerations)
Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d 759 (2d Cir. 1998) (prima facie case structure for retaliation claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (knowledge can be attributed to employer when on notice through agents)
Olsson v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 49 N.Y.2d 408 (N.Y. 1980) (good faith expectation in university relations with students)
In re Estate of Palma, 40 A.D.3d 1157 (3d Dep't 2007) (conflict and impartiality issues in fiduciary settings)