465 F.Supp.3d 75
D. Conn.2020Background
- In November 2014 UConn women’s soccer player Noriana Radwan made a middle‑finger gesture that was broadcast on ESPNU; she was suspended and later removed from the team and had her spring 2015 athletic scholarship cancelled.
- Coach Tsantiris recommended cancellation; Athletic Director Warde Manuel approved; Financial Aid Office (Lucas) sent the cancellation letter and later denied a hearing as untimely.
- Radwan transferred to Hofstra shortly after and pursued internal appeals; Financial Aid concluded her appeal request was filed outside the 14 business‑day window.
- Radwan sued: Title IX (selective enforcement), § 1983 Equal Protection and Procedural Due Process, First Amendment retaliation, and state contract / negligent infliction claims against UConn and individual defendants.
- Cross‑motions for summary judgment were filed; the district court granted defendants’ motion in full and denied plaintiff’s partial motion, closing the case on June 6, 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX (selective enforcement) | Radwan: discipline was sex‑based — male athletes with equal or worse misconduct were treated more leniently. | UConn: comparators not similarly situated; no evidence same decisionmakers treated males differently; legitimate non‑discriminatory reason (serious misconduct). | Defendants entitled to summary judgment — Radwan failed to identify similarly situated male comparators or otherwise show discriminatory intent/pretext. |
| Equal Protection (§1983) | Radwan: Individual defendants personally discriminated on basis of sex in imposing harsher discipline. | Defendants: no personal involvement as to male comparators; many comparators’ matters never reached same decisionmakers; qualified immunity. | Summary judgment for all individual defendants — no evidence of personal involvement or similarly situated comparators. |
| Procedural Due Process (§1983) | Radwan: one‑year athletic grant was a protected property interest; cancellation mid‑year without adequate process. | Defendants: no constitutionally protected property interest in a one‑year scholarship; appeal procedure existed and was not timely invoked; no personal involvement for some defendants. | Summary judgment for defendants — no protectible property interest (and alternative qualified immunity reasons). |
| First Amendment (retaliation) | Radwan: the middle‑finger gesture was expressive conduct; cancellation was retaliation for protected speech. | Defendants: gesture was inadvertent/not a particularized message; alternatively, reasonable officials could believe discipline permissible (qualified immunity); college speech doctrine less settled. | Court finds gesture could be expressive (question for jury) but grants qualified immunity to individual defendants; summary judgment for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (U.S. 1969) (student speech may not be suppressed unless it would materially and substantially disrupt school operations)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (Title IX selective‑enforcement framework in campus disciplinary context)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (Title IX claims evaluated using Title VII analogues and McDonnell Douglas analysis)
- Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1972) (First Amendment principles applied to college campuses)
- Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1986) (schools may punish lewd or vulgar student speech)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property‑interest analysis under the Due Process Clause)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (evidence of pretext combined with prima facie case can permit jury to infer unlawful discrimination)