Rolph v. Hobart & William Smith Colleges
271 F. Supp. 3d 386
W.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Rolph, a male HWS student, was expelled after a Student Grievance Panel found he committed non-consensual sexual conduct against a female student (Jane Roe); he was later acquitted of related criminal charges.
- HWS followed its 2013–14 Sexual Misconduct Policy (Student Handbook): pre-hearing investigation by outside investigator, no counsel at hearings, advisor allowed but not permitted to speak, preponderance standard, and appeal to Vice President for Student Affairs.
- Rolph alleges the investigation (by attorney Erin Beatty) and hearing were flawed: failure to preserve or review electronic evidence, limited witness interviews, no cross-examination, and other procedural defects.
- Rolph alleges broader context of public and federal pressure on colleges (OCR "Dear Colleague" letter, media coverage of prior HWS cases) created incentive to favor accusers and influenced HWS decisionmaking.
- Rolph sued asserting Title IX (declaratory relief and damages), breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; HWS moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- District court denied dismissal of Title IX erroneous-outcome claim (Counts I–II) but dismissed selective-enforcement theory and all state-law claims (Counts III–VI).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged Title IX discrimination (erroneous outcome) | Rolph: procedural defects plus public/federal pressure create plausible minimal inference of gender bias causing erroneous outcome | HWS: no overt evidence of gender bias; media pressure mostly post-dates proceedings; independent criminal prosecution undermines bias inference | Court: Denied dismissal as to erroneous-outcome Title IX claim — pleaded facts give minimal plausible inference of sex bias (Columbia Univ. standard) |
| Whether selective-enforcement Title IX claim stated | Rolph: alternative theory that penalty/decision motivated by sex | HWS: no comparator evidence; women not disciplined similarly | Court: Dismissed selective-enforcement claim — no allegations of similarly situated opposite-sex comparators |
| Whether state-law claims must have been brought via Article 78 | HWS: claims challenging expulsion should have been brought in Article 78 within four months | Rolph: seeks damages and Title IX injunctive relief; state claims seek monetary relief so Article 78 not required | Court: Rejected HWS’s Article 78 timeliness argument; construed state claims as seeking damages so Article 78 inapplicable |
| Whether breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, NIED survive | Rolph: Student Handbook and implied contract terms (fair process) were violated; accreditation standards create duty | HWS: claims rest on aspirational handbook language, no specific enforceable provisions, and New York law does not recognize negligence based on disciplinary procedures | Court: Dismissed all state-law claims — plaintiff failed to identify specific enforceable handbook terms, promissory estoppel inapplicable where contract exists, negligence not recognized here, and NIED conceded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Iqbal/Twombly pleading framework)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (Title IX pleading: must allege specific facts supporting a minimal plausible inference of sex discrimination in disciplinary outcome)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (pleading standard for discrimination claims; minimal inference standard under McDonnell Douglas framework applies at pleading stage)
- Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994) (distinguishes erroneous-outcome and selective-enforcement theories under Title IX)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246 (2009) (both injunctive relief and damages available under Title IX)
- Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2011) (implied contract between student and university formed by bulletins/handbooks; judicial review limited to arbitrariness/substantial compliance)