272 F. Supp. 3d 285
D. Mass.2017Background
- In 2012–2013, BU students Alicia Schaefer and Thomas (Yongjie) Fu had repeated unwelcome interactions in class; Fu allegedly sat near, was disruptive, made a comment about her appearance, and others knew of his behavior.
- Schaefer complained to two professors about Fu’s conduct; one professor indicated others had discussed Fu’s antics.
- On October 29, 2013, Fu allegedly body-checked Schaefer in a campus dining hall, causing physical injury (including a concussion) and later PTSD.
- Schaefer sued Fu and Boston University in Massachusetts Superior Court (2016), amended (2017), and BU removed to federal court.
- The amended complaint asserted Title IX, M.G.L. c.214 §1(C), and negligence claims against BU (Counts VI–VIII).
- BU moved to dismiss Counts VI–VIII for failure to state a claim; the court addressed whether the facts plausibly plead institutional liability under each theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schaefer pleaded actionable sexual harassment under Title IX | Fu’s conduct (repeated contacts, comment about modeling, and the assault) constituted sex-based harassment that deprived access to educational benefits | Conduct alleged is not sufficiently severe, pervasive, or sexual in nature to meet Title IX standard | Dismissed: single/limited sex-based remark and other non-sexual conduct insufficient for Title IX liability |
| Whether M.G.L. c.214 §1(C) applies to peer-on-peer harassment | BU is liable under §1(C) for allowing sexual harassment by an institution-affiliated individual | §1(C) creates a cause only where the institution (through employees/administrators) is the harasser, not for peer-on-peer conduct | Dismissed: statute not interpreted to cover peer-on-peer harassment; no allegation Fu acted as institutional agent toward Schaefer |
| Whether BU owed and breached a duty of care (negligence) to protect Schaefer from Fu | Notice to professors about Fu’s behavior put BU on constructive notice and made harm foreseeable, creating a duty and potential breach | No duty alleged to protect Schaefer from peer misconduct or the dining-hall altercation | Denied dismissal: factual allegations (reports to professors, awareness) plausibly show foreseeability and a duty to take protective action |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (First Circuit on plausibility and inferences)
- Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39 (limits on considering matters beyond the complaint)
- Porto v. Town of Tewksbury, 488 F.3d 67 (Title IX harassment standard discussion)
- Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (Title IX requires harassment to be severe, pervasive, and based on sex)
- Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52 (harassment must be based on sex)
- Jorgensen v. Mass. Port Auth., 905 F.2d 515 (elements of negligence)
- Irwin v. Town of Ware, 392 Mass. 745, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (duty to protect when harm is foreseeable in educational setting)