KEITH SCHIEBEL v. SCHOHARIE CENTRAL SCHOOL, et. al.,
1:22-CV-01109 (LEK/DJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
June 30, 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Keith Schiebel commenced this action on October 27, 2022, against the Schoharie Central School District (“SCSD”), Kristen Duguay (“Duguay”), and David Blanchard (“Blanchard”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging gender bias in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1982,
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion is granted.
II. BACKGROUND
The following facts, which the Court assumes to be true at this stage, are taken from the Complaint.
A. SCSD’s Gender-Based Misconduct Policies
SCSD is a public school district located in Schohaire, New York that provides Kindergarten through 12th Grade education. Compl. ¶ 3. At the time of the events of this Complaint, Blanchard served as
SCSD maintains sexual harassment policies in order to comply with Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational settings. Id. ¶¶ 26–40. SCSD’s sexual harassment policies are contained in Policy 7551. Id. Policy 7551’s contents are extensive. It prohibits sexual harassment, provides a comprehensive definition of sexual harassment, outlines measures to combat sexual harassment, and explains the procedures used to investigate and adjudicate sexual harassment claims. Id. Relevant here, Policy 7551 states: “Upon receipt of an informal/formal complaint (even an anonymous complaint), [SCSD] will conduct a prompt, equitable, and thorough investigation of the charges.” Id. ¶ 37. If the investigation reveals that “[t]hird parties (such as school volunteers, vendors, etc.)” have violated Policy 7551, the third party “will be subject to appropriate sanctions as warranted and in compliance with law.” Id. ¶ 38. Policy 7551 also states that “[a]n appeal procedure will also be provided to address any unresolved complaints and/or unsatisfactory prior determinations by the applicable Compliance Officer(s).” Id. ¶ 39.
B. Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff is an agricultural educator and a professional in the maple producing industry. Compl. ¶¶ 53, 55. Until recently, Plaintiff was employed by the New York State Maple Producers Association (“NYSMPA”), where he helped to organize and manage the Mobile Maple Experience (“MME”). Id. ¶¶ 2, 57–60. MME is an educational program in which a mobile trailer is employed to provide “educational presentations that show[] the history and practice of using maple sap to make syrup and other maple products.” Id. ¶ 67. MME has been used an educational tool in a variety of environments, from the New York State Fair to local schools. Id. ¶ 60.
On June 2, 2021, MME held a presentation for elementary school students. Id. ¶ 62. Plaintiff operated MME that day, and ten high school students served as volunteers for the event. Id. Throughout the day, a number of observers and other volunteers were on-site for the event, including the New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, two representatives from a local Board of Cooperative Educational Services (“BOCES”), an NYSMPA Executive Committee member, a photographer, and over thirty teachers and teaching assistants. Id. ¶¶ 69–73.
At one point during the day’s activities, one of the female high school students supervised by Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff engaged in inappropriate conduct. Id. ¶ 114. The student claimed that Plaintiff “had reached around her with two hands and had touched her breast and buttocks.” Id. The day after the alleged incident, the student’s mother called SCSD and “explained her daughter declined to go to school that day because she was uncomfortable, because of the man in the trailer.” Id. ¶ 112.
After receiving the mother’s phone call, SCSD decided to undertake an investigation into the matter pursuant to Policy 7551. Id. ¶ 113. The school’s Title IX Coordinator—Vice Principal DuGuay—conducted the investigation. Id. In conducting her investigation, DuGuay contacted the complainant-student, the complainant-student’s mother, and another student who was in the trailer at the time of the alleged incident. Id. ¶ 134. The other student “stated that she had not seen anything inappropriate” while she was in the trailer with Plaintiff and the complainant-student. Id. ¶ 135. Other than these two students and the complainant-student’s mother, DuGuay
On June 28, 2021, SCSD Superintendent Blanchard emailed Plaintiff: “Please contact the Superintendent’s office at Schoharie regarding an issue a student addressed with the district while the Maple Experience was here on June 2nd.” Id. ¶ 77. Plaintiff spoke with Blanchard on the phone the following day, in which Blanchard conveyed that SCSD had received a complaint that Plaintiff had made a student uncomfortable during the MME visit. Id. ¶ 81.
On June 30, 2021—the day after Plaintiff’s call with Blanchard—Plaintiff received a call from a Capital Region BOCES representative. Id. ¶ 86. The representative informed Plaintiff “that MME would no longer be welcome” at local BOCES schools if Plaintiff “was personally engaged in the presentations, specifically due to the incident at [SCSD].” Id. ¶ 88. Plaintiff then contacted Blanchard to further discuss the incident. Id. ¶ 93. Two weeks later, on July 12, 2021, Plaintiff and Blanchard agreed to meet in-person on July 16 at SCSD. Id. ¶ 103. Between June 30 and July 12, Plaintiff also sent two e-mail requests to Blanchard requesting “documentation/written reports” regarding the incident. Id. ¶¶ 89, 92. Plaintiff never received the requested “documentation/written reports.” Id. ¶ 140. Additionally, at no point prior to the July 16 meeting did Blanchard or any member of the SCSD give Plaintiff the specific details of the allegation. Id. ¶ 158.
Plaintiff, Blanchard, and DuGuay were present at the July 16 meeting. Id. ¶ 105. DuGuay stated at the outset of the meeting “words to the effect to [Plaintiff] that this was a serious matter,” and “then stated that her back was to the wall and she was aware of the exits because of her concerns about [Plaintiff].” Id. ¶¶ 107–08. DuGuay then detailed the allegations of the complaint against Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 110. During this discussion, Plaintiff states that “[i]n attempting to recall the events of June 2 [Plaintiff] indicated that he may have reached around a student at one point in the trailer to get something.” Id. ¶ 119. Plaintiff did not, however, “state or admit that he had even accidently touched a student’s breast or buttocks.” Id. ¶ 122. During this meeting, Plaintiff states that DuGuay “never asked him any specific questions about any alleged touching,” “never asked him any specific questions about him using two hands,” and displayed a “manner [that] was hostile and accusatory throughout the meeting.” Id. ¶¶ 123–24, 127.
On July 30, 2021, DuGuay presented her findings in a formal letter. Id. ¶ 147. That letter stated that Plaintiff’s comments that “he may have reached around a student” amounted to “an admission of guilt.” Id. ¶ 148. The letter further stated that based “on the totality of the circumstances,” DuGuay’s “investigation determined that [Plaintiff’s] conduct constitutes sexual harassment . . . .” Id. ¶ 151. Plaintiff notes that “DuGuay failed to disclose . . . that the only other potential witness she interviewed claims to have ‘witnessed nothing.’” Id. ¶ 150. Plaintiff additionally states that “DuGuay’s summary of the investigation was incomplete, unfair and biased against [Plaintiff], including mischaracterizations of his responses.” Id. ¶ 152.
DuGuay’s July 30 letter was also sent to NYSMPA. Id. ¶ 153. After reviewing the letter, the NYSMPA Board of Directors voted to terminate all of Plaintiff’s consulting contracts. Id. ¶ 154.
Plaintiff, via his counsel, requested on August 13, 2021, that Blanchard conduct a supervisory review of DuGuay’s findings pursuant to Policy 7551’s appeal procedures.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to
The plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Supreme Court has stated that “the pleading standard
IV. DISCUSSION
Defendants state that Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because: (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a Title IX claim; (2) Plaintiff has failed to state a Title IX erroneous outcome claim; (3) individual defendants Blanchard and DuGuay are not proper defendants under Title IX; (4) the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims; (5) Plaintiff’s state law claims are time barred; and (6) Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead his state law claims. See generally Mot.
A. Title IX
Title IX provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Title IX also regulates disciplinary procedures. When commencing disciplinary action against an alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment, Title IX specifically
Plaintiff’s Title IX claim proceeds under an erroneous outcome theory. See Compl. ¶¶ 170–180. To prevail under this theory, Plaintiff must show “(1) articulable doubt [as to] the accuracy of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, and (2) that gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding.” Doe, 760 F. App’x at 30.
1. Plaintiff Has Standing to Make a Title IX Claim
The Supreme Court has taken an expansive view of Title IX standing, finding that “Title IX . . . broadly prohibits a funding recipient from subjecting any person to ‘discrimination’ ‘on the basis of sex.’” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 181–82 (2005). The Court has further stated that “[t]here is no doubt that ‘if we are to give [Title IX] the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.’” North Haven Bd. of Edu. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521 (1982) (quoting United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 801 (1966)). Specifically, the Court has taken a very literal approach to the plain meaning of the word “person” in Title IX. “Congress easily could have substituted ‘student’ or ‘beneficiary’ for the word ‘person’ if it had wished to restrict the scope of [Title IX].” Id.
Courts have found that a plaintiff does not necessarily have to be a student or employee of a federally funded institution to have Title IX standing. See, e.g., Doe v. Avon Old Farms Sch., Inc., No. 21-CV-748, 2023 WL 2742330, at *13 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2023) (“Title IX is not so limited that it would exclude either of the . . . plaintiffs from its scope simply because neither was a student.”); Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ., 48 F.4th 686, 707–09 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[A] non-student and non-employee can bring a Title IX claim if they were subject to discrimination ‘while participating, or at least attempting to participate, in the funding recipient’s education program or activity.’”); Doe v. Brown Univ., 896 F.3d 127, 132 n.6 (1st Cir. 2018) (“[A] victim does not need to be an enrolled student at the offending institution in order for a Title IX private right of action to exist. Members of the public regularly avail themselves of the services provided by educational institutions receiving federal funding.”).
Defendants contend that Plaintiff does not have standing to raise his Title IX claim. Mot. at 5. Defendants state that only beneficiaries of federally funded school programs have Title IX standing. Id. According to Defendants’ theory, Plaintiff is not a beneficiary because he is not a SCSD student, employee, resident, or parent, but is rather “a third-party independent contractor.” Id. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff “was not denied any educational opportunity or ability to participate in an educational activity.” Id.
A plain reading of Title IX does not deprive Plaintiff of standing. The Court notes the paucity of cases that squarely answer whether a third-party contractor constitutes a “beneficiary” under Title IX. Defendants argue that Plaintiff must be a “beneficiary of a federally funded program” and that a third-party contractor such as Plaintiff does not constitute a “beneficiary.” Id. However, the Supreme Court has taken an expansive reading of
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff must show that he has “been denied an educational opportunity or the ability to participate in an educational activity.”1 Mot. at 3. However, that requirement is not found in the language of Title IX. The plain language of Title IX states that Plaintiff must show that he was either “excluded from participation in, [] denied the benefits of, or [] subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
discriminated on the basis of gender during a federally funded school’s investigation. See Compl. ¶¶ 170–180. This appears to fall squarely within the “subjected to discrimination under an[] education program or activity” portion of Title IX.
In applying the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of Title IX standing, the Court finds that Plaintiff—a contractor with SCSD who alleges gender-based discrimination from SCSD—has Title IX standing.
2. Plaintiff Has Plausibly Plead Articulable Doubt as to the Accuracy of the Outcome of the Disciplinary Proceeding
The first element of an erroneous outcome claim requires Plaintiff to plead “articulable doubt [as to] the accuracy of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding.” Doe, 760 F. App’x at 30. Here, Plaintiff plausibly pleads articulable doubt.
The strongest pillar of Plaintiff’s argument is the lack of corroborating evidence. Plaintiff states that only one person in the investigation—the complainant-student—claims to have seen Plaintiff sexually harass the complainant-student. Compl. ¶¶ 133–34. While there were several other people present at the MME on June 2, 2021, the investigation did not produce a single corroborating witness. Id. In fact, another student who was in the trailer at the time of the alleged incident “stated that she had not seen anything like [what the complainant-student described].” Id. ¶ 134. Courts in this Circuit have noted that failure to take into account testimony from witnesses present near or at the time of the alleged misconduct is indicative of articulable doubt. See Doe v. Syracuse Univ., No. 22-CV-644, 2023 WL 4105481 (N.D.N.Y. June 21, 2023) (basing a finding that plaintiff successfully pleaded articulable doubt on evidence that the university
Plaintiff’s case is further strengthened by the insufficiency of the investigation. According to the Complaint, DuGuay only contacted a very small group of witnesses: the complainant-student, the complainant-student’s mother, and the other student present in the trailer at the time of the alleged incident. Compl. ¶¶ 133–34. DuGuay did not contact the dozens of other individuals—teachers, other students, visitors—present at MME that day. Id. ¶ 134. Courts in this Circuit have noted that the credibility of Title IX disciplinary outcomes can be called into question by the paucity of witnesses interviewed. See Doe v. Columbia Univ., 551 F. Supp. 3d 433, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), reconsideration denied, No. 20-CV-6770, 2022 WL 16856158 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2022) (citing evidence that the university only relied on the allegations of three witnesses in coming to a disciplinary outcome as contributing to a finding of articulable doubt).
Articulable doubt is also shown with respect to DuGuay’s characterization of the July 16 meeting with Plaintiff. DuGuay’s July 29 letter cites the July 16 meeting, claiming that Plaintiff’s statement that he “may have reached around a student” constituted “an admission of guilt.” Compl. ¶ 148. Defendants also state that “Plaintiff admits that he told Ms. Duguay that he might have reached around the student in question . . . which supported the student’s allegation that Plaintiff had reached around her and, in so doing, came into contact with her buttocks and breast.” Id. at 7. The Court disagrees that Plaintiff’s statement that he “may have reached around the student” amounts to an admission that Plaintiff engaged in inappropriate touching. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff never told DuGuay or Blanchard that he inappropriately touched the student. Id. ¶ 121. There thus appears to be little basis to presume that Plaintiff’s comments during the July 16 meeting constituted “an admission of guilt.”
Defendants’ Motion and Reply offer little to bolster DuGuay’s investigation. Defendants focus specifically on Plaintiff’s arguments that DuGuay’s manner was “hostile and accusatory” and that Plaintiff “was not advised of the substance of the allegations prior to the meeting on July 16, 2021.” Reply at 7. Defendants posit that those two arguments are not enough to cast doubt on the outcome of the proceedings. Id. Defendants nevertheless fail to address much of the other evidence put forward by Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants fail to address the lack of corroborating evidence in the investigation, or the small set of witnesses interviewed by DuGuay. See generally id.
Plaintiff’s Complaint plausibly provides enough evidence of articulable doubt as to the accuracy of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings to meet
3. Plaintiff Has Not Plausibly Pleaded Gender Bias
The second element of an erroneous outcome claim requires Plaintiff to plead that “gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding.” Doe, 760 F. App’x at 30. Here, Plaintiff has failed to make an adequate pleading.
Plaintiff provides a very long list in his Response of the many ways in which SCSD failed to conduct a thorough and fair investigation. Resp. at 12–14. Plaintiff further cites case law that states, “[W]hen combined with clear procedural irregularities
Plaintiff’s argument fails because he provides no evidence that Defendant-SCSD acted “based on invidious stereotypes.” Menaker, 935 F.3d at 33. Plaintiff fails to detail any evidence in his Complaint that SCSD’s investigation was at least partially influenced or motivated by gender bias. At no point does Plaintiff point to evidence that shows that the investigation was targeted at Plaintiff or poorly conducted because of Plaintiff’s gender or the gender of complainant-student. See generally Compl.
At most, Plaintiff makes broad and conclusory generalities regarding the nationwide treatment of men in sexual harassment cases. Plaintiff states that in the wake of a 2011 letter by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, an enforcement atmosphere has emerged that is “gender skewed against men.” Id. ¶ 43. Plaintiff further claims that “the #Metoo [sic] movement has placed pressure upon educational institutions to protect female complainants of sexual misconduct and harassment.” Id. ¶ 48. He also claims that at the time of SCSD’s investigation, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was facing an investigation “which was heavily publicized throughout media channels.” Id. ¶ 49. In effect, Plaintiff seems to be suggesting that an anti-male bias has pervaded national discourse regarding sexual harassment, and that such a bias tickled down into SCSD’s investigation. These generalized suggestions of nationwide anti-male bias are in-and-of-themselves speculative. But to suggest that this purported anti-male environment manifested in SCSD’s investigation—with no facts to support such a suggestion—only invites further unsubstantiated speculation.
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead enough evidence under the
4. Claims Against Individual Defendants
Defendants contend that the Title IX claims should be dismissed against individual defendants Blanchard and DuGuay “because Title IX claims cannot be asserted against individuals.” Mot. at 9. While Defendants’ reading of Title IX standing is accurate, Plaintiff has not made a Title IX claim against Blanchard or DuGuay. See Compl. ¶¶ 170–180. Instead, Plaintiff only made a Title IX claim against SCSD. Id.
In summary, the Court finds Plaintiff has standing to bring a Title IX claim, and that Plaintiff has plausibly plead articulable doubt as to the accuracy of the outcome of Defendant-SCDS’s investigation. However, Plaintiff has not plausibly plead that gender bias was a motivating factor for the erroneous outcome. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s Title IX claim without prejudice.
B. State Law Claims
If a court has original jurisdiction, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.”
Supplemental jurisdiction is traditionally treated as “a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”
Here, Defendants argue that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in light of the unviability of Plaintiff’s federal claim. Mot. at 9. The Court agrees. This case is in its infancy, as parties have yet to proceed to discovery. See Docket. Courts in this Circuit have noted that when a case is early in the early phases of litigation and has yet to enter discovery, the aforementioned balancing factors weigh heavily against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. See, e.g., Shabtai v. Shabtai, No. 20-CV-10868, 2021 WL 1518382, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2021) (“[T]he pre-discovery stage of the litigation means that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.”); Goonewardena v. AMR Corp., No. 08-CV-4141, 2008 WL 5049904, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008) (“The dismissal of the federal claims early on is ‘a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.’” (quoting Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350)). Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that litigation in this Court, rather than state court, would be a more appropriate use of judicial time and resources. Plaintiff can just as fairly and conveniently pursue his state law claims in state court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk is respectfully directed to close this action; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 30, 2023
Albany, New York
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
United States District Judge