981 F. Supp. 2d 184
W.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Routh, a former University of Rochester student, sues the University and Hulbert after his expulsion following a disciplinary proceeding.
- Hulbert, an RA at the University, filed a complaint against Routh alleging nonconsensual sexual acts; the University held a hearing and expelled Routh for sexual misconduct and disorderly conduct.
- A hearing on September 29, 2011 concluded with findings of violations 12 (sexual misconduct/assault) and 5(a) (disorderly conduct); expulsion became effective September 30, 2011.
- Routh appealed Levy’s expulsion decision to Dean Lennie; Lennie denied the appeal on December 2, 2011; Routh and his mother later pursued amendments and additional claims.
- The University moved to dismiss the original complaint; Hulbert moved to dismiss and for sanctions; Routh and Manes sought leave to amend; the court granted in part and denied in part, dismissing most claims and leaving a defamation claim against Hulbert viable.
- The court later dismissed Manes from the action, granted Routh time to obtain counsel, and ultimately granted a narrowed leave to amend focusing on a defamation claim and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract claim viability | Routh asserts an implied contract formed by enrollment terms and University procedures. | University argues notice and process complied with its standards; claim fails for lack of identified specific rule violation. | Dismissed; failure to plead specific internal rules/terms renders the contract claim futile. |
| Article 78 jurisdiction | Article 78 claim may be pursued in federal court via supplemental jurisdiction. | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Article 78 claims. | Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; Article 78 claim dismissed without prejudice. |
| Title IX discrimination claim | University discriminated based on gender by prosecuting him while not disciplining Hulbert. | No plausible cross-complaint or discriminatory motive shown; separate processes allowed. | Fails to state an actionable Title IX claim. |
| Defamation claim against Hulbert | Hulbert made false statements accusing rape/sexual misconduct that harmed Routh. | Common-privilege and lack of damages defeat defamation claims. | Defamation claim survives; damages alleged; common-interest privilege denied on record. |
| IIED claim against Hulbert | Hulbert’s false accusations caused severe distress. | False accusations of sexual crimes generally not sufficiently extreme/outrageous. | Dismissed; IIED claim against Hulbert dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading any claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard applied to pleadings)
- Papelino v. Albany College of Pharmacy of Union University, 633 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2011) (implied contract review in academic discipline context; arbitrariness/substantial compliance)
- Jones v. Trustees of Union College, 92 A.D.3d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dept. 2012) (notice/terms specificity for implied contract claim in disciplinary context)
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (sealing of judicial documents; balancing access vs. privacy)