Summa v. Hofstra University
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3677
2d Cir.2013Background
- Summa, Hofstra graduate student 2006–2009; hired as football team manager with fall/spring stipends; subjected to repeated harassment by football players (Facebook postings, bus movie incidents, and lewd remarks); she complained to Cohen in Sept. 2006 and to the Dean/EEO officer after the bus incident in Nov. 2006; the university promptly disciplined offending players and implemented harassment training; Summa did not serve as spring football manager in 2007 though expected to; she separately pursued a graduate assistantship in May 2007 and NYSDHR complaint, which led to further university actions; the university ultimately rescinded the GA offer in July 2007 and terminated Summa’s campus employment privileges in 2008 for double-billing hours; Summa filed suit on Jan. 25, 2008 alleging Title VII/IX harassment and retaliation and NYSHRL claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment imputation liability | Harassment by football players is actionable and imputable to Hofstra given the university’s control and failure to adequately prevent. | Harassment by non-employees is not imputable where university promptly addressed complaints; no supervisor-like liability. | Harassment by players cannot be imputed; university’s prompt remedial actions and training favored dismissal of harassment claims. |
| Title VII/NYSHRL retaliation prima facie | Summa engaged in protected activity and faced adverse actions with causal connection. | Record fails to show protected activity causally related to adverse actions. | Summa established a prima facie case for retaliation; causation shown through timing and supervisor involvement. |
| Causation and pretext for adverse actions | Evidence shows pretext and discriminatory motive for Spring Ball denial, GA offer rescission, and employment-privilege termination. | Reasons provided were legitimate non-retaliatory justifications. | Record supports pretext; genuine triable issues remain on each adverse action. |
| Title IX private right of action | Claims overlap with Title VII and may be pursued under Title IX as employment discrimination in education. | Title IX private employment-right action is not clearly established for this context; relief cognizable under Title VII. | All relief sought is cognizable under Title VII; Title IX claim duplicative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat’l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) (reasonable belief of discrimination suffices for protected activity)
- Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (to establish retaliation, protected activity need not be a Title VII violation itself)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001) (burden-shifting in retaliation; pretext analysis)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity can establish causation for retaliation)
- Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 1997) (negligence standard for employer response to harassment by non-employees)
- Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 622 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1980) (temporal proximity used to infer causation in retaliation)
- Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2000) (single incidents can support hostile environment under Title VII)