680 F.Supp.3d 193
N.D.N.Y.2023Background
- Plaintiff Keith Schiebel, an agricultural educator and independent contractor who ran the Mobile Maple Experience (MME), presented an educational program at Schoharie Central School District (SCSD) on June 2, 2021.
- A female high‑school volunteer later alleged Plaintiff touched her breast and buttocks; her mother called the school and SCSD opened a Title IX investigation under Policy 7551.
- Assistant Principal/Title IX Coordinator Kristen DuGuay investigated, interviewed only the complainant, the complainant’s mother, and one other student (who reported seeing nothing), and concluded Plaintiff’s comment that he “may have reached around” amounted to an admission and constituted sexual harassment.
- Superintendent David Blanchard reviewed and affirmed DuGuay’s findings on appeal without seeking additional evidence; DuGuay’s letter was shared with NYS Maple Producers Association, which then terminated Plaintiff’s contracts.
- Plaintiff sued SCSD under Title IX (erroneous‑outcome theory) and asserted state tort claims against all defendants; Defendants moved to dismiss. The court found Plaintiff had Title IX standing and adequately pleaded articulable doubt as to the disciplinary outcome, but failed to plead gender bias as a motivating factor; the Title IX claim was dismissed without prejudice and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Title IX | Schiebel (contractor) participated in SCSD’s educational activity and so is a "person" protected by Title IX | Only students/employees/beneficiaries should have Title IX standing; contractors are not Title IX beneficiaries | Court: Plaintiff has standing as a Title IX "person"/beneficiary given his role providing educational services to students |
| Erroneous‑outcome — articulable doubt as to accuracy | Investigation was thin: few witnesses interviewed, no corroboration, DuGuay mischaracterized Plaintiff’s remark; procedural irregularities | Investigation and meeting supported finding; Plaintiff’s statement that he “may have reached around” supports outcome | Court: Plaintiff plausibly pleaded articulable doubt (insufficient corroboration; narrow witness pool; mischaracterization of statements) |
| Erroneous‑outcome — gender bias as motivating factor | Procedural flaws combined with contemporaneous cultural pressure (e.g., #MeToo climate, OCR guidance) permit an inference that gender bias motivated the outcome | No factual allegations tying SCSD’s actions to gender‑based stereotypes or bias; general nationwide trends are insufficient | Court: Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead that gender bias motivated the erroneous outcome; Title IX claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Title IX claims against individual defendants | (Not applicable — Plaintiff sued only SCSD under Title IX) | Individuals cannot be liable under Title IX | Court: Title IX claim was only against SCSD; individual liability under Title IX not implicated here |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims | State claims arise from same facts and could proceed in federal court | Federal claim fails; court should decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state claims without prejudice | Court: Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility standard under Rule 8)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility and factual pleading requirements)
- Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (broad Title IX standing for “persons”)
- North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512 (textual reading of Title IX’s scope)
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (purpose of Title IX to protect individuals from discrimination)
- Menaker v. Hofstra Univ., 935 F.3d 20 (procedural irregularities plus bias evidence can support inference of sex discrimination)
- Doe v. Colgate Univ., [citation="760 F. App'x 22"] (erroneous‑outcome and selective‑enforcement frameworks under Title IX)
- Brown Univ. v. [Doe], 896 F.3d 127 (non‑students may fall within Title IX’s scope when participating in educational programs)
- Doe v. Columbia Univ., 551 F. Supp. 3d 433 (failure to interview relevant witnesses can support articulable doubt finding)
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (supplemental jurisdiction principles)
- Carnegie‑Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (factors guiding discretionary decline of supplemental jurisdiction)