Anderson v. Univ. of New Eng.

610 F.Supp.3d 306

Tyler ANDERSON, Plaintiff,

v.UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND, Defendant.

Docket no. 2:21-cv-00169-GZS

United States District Court, D. Maine.

Signed June 29, 2022

Guy D. Loranger, Law Office of Guy D. Loranger, Old Orchard Beach, ME, for Plaintiff.

Ronald W. Schneider, Jr., William J. Wahrer, Bernstein Shur, Portland, ME, for Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

George Z. Singal, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant University of New England's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18). Having reviewed the Motion and the related submissions filed by the parties (ECF Nos. 21 & 22), the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "In evaluating whether a complaint states a plausible claim, [the Court] perform[s] [a] two-step analysis." Saldivar v. Racine, 818 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). First, the Court "must separate the complaint's factual allegations (which must be accepted as true) from its conclusory legal allegations (which need not be credited)." Morales-Cruz v. University of P.R., 676 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). Second, the Court "must determine whether the ‘factual content ... allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’ " Id. at 224 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). "This standard is ‘not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.’ " Saldivar, 818 F.3d at 18 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). "If the factual allegations in the complaint are too meager, vague, or conclusory to remove the possibility of relief from the realm of mere conjecture, the complaint is open to dismissal." Squeri v. Mount Ida Coll., 954 F.3d 56, 66 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Barchock v. CVS Health Corp., 886 F.3d 43, 48 (1st Cir. 2018) ).

"An analysis of plausibility is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Medina-Velázquez v. Hernández-Gregorat, 767 F.3d 103, 109 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, "the court may not disregard properly pled factual allegations, ‘even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable.’ " Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Rather, "[t]he relevant inquiry focuses on the reasonableness of the inference of liability" from the facts. Id. at 13.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Tyler Anderson, a Massachusetts resident, began attending the University of New England ("UNE") as a student in 2015. (Am. Compl. (ECF No. 16), PageID # 91.) In the fall of 2018, Anderson began his senior year with a class schedule that included a biochemistry class with UNE Professor Deena Small. (Id., PageID #s 91-92.)

During the first meeting of this biochemistry class, Small made eye contact with Anderson and smiled. At next meeting, Small greeted Anderson with a "big smile," "brushed by Anderson," and asked him how he was doing. (Id., PageID # 92.) These initial interactions left Anderson "preoccupied" with trying to figure out whether he and Small had met previously.

(Id. ) Similar interactions continued. During the September 5th class, Small "greeted Anderson with a big ‘hello’ and used his name." (Id. ) During the September 7th session, Small "met Anderson with another greeting." (Id. ) At this point, Anderson decided to change his seat and contemplated changing classes, believing the professor had "singled him out." (Id. )

Despite Anderson's relocation, Small sought to engage him in conversation after two subsequent classes. After the September 10th session, Small approached Anderson and asked him how he liked the class. She told Anderson that he was "smart, attractive and should do well after graduation." (Id. ) She also complimented Anderson on "the way [he] dressed" and lightly squeezed his arm. (Id. ) At the September 12th class, Small asked to see Anderson after class. In this post-class meeting, Small asked Anderson how he was doing and commented that he "looked sharp." (Id. ) The professor asked Anderson how often he worked out, remarked that it showed, and again touched his arm. The next day, Anderson missed several classes due to a headache induced by tension and anxiety. (Id., PageID # 93.)

At the conclusion of the September 14th class, Small approached Anderson and invited him to meet her at a restaurant. Anderson ultimately declined, citing his plan to drive home to Massachusetts for the weekend. Small suggested they could figure out another time during the next class.

The following week, Small renewed her invitation, suggesting that they meet at a local pizza parlor. Anderson agreed and drove to the establishment, but when Small arrived, she suggested that they go somewhere else. Anderson then got into Small's car and they drove to a coffee shop. At the coffee shop, their legs touched under their table and Small touched Anderson's hand. Small asked Anderson if he was attracted to her, and Anderson replied that he was "not interested." (Id. ) When Small suggested that they go for drinks, Anderson demurred. Anderson sensed that Small was "not happy" with his responses. (Id. ) After another fifteen minutes, Small drove Anderson back to his car.

On September 19th, Small approached Anderson at the lecture hall's entrance and asked if he had thought things over. Anderson responded, "[I]s this about a relationship?" (Id., PageID # 94.) To which Small replied, "[C]ould be, or something more casual." (Id. ) Anderson rebuffed Small again, explaining that she was "not what he was looking for in a woman" and that he needed to prioritize his studies. (Id. ) He also told the professor that he had considered dropping her class. Anderson stayed in his dormitory the rest of the day, missing several classes. He periodically missed Small's biochemistry class moving forward.

By the end of September, Anderson was depressed and was continuing to consider dropping Small's class. On October 2nd, a UNE dean emailed Small asking her to reach out to Anderson. (Id., PageID # 95.) On October 11th, the same dean again reached out to Small about Anderson. At this point, Small informed the dean that she intended to contact UNE's security department because she felt threatened by Anderson.

Over the next month, Small rejected requests from Anderson to make up assignments and to withdraw from her class. On November 1st, despite a finding by UNE's security department that Anderson posed no threat to Small, UNE issued the professor a panic button. Around this same time, Small's allegations against Anderson became public knowledge on campus.

On November 8, 2018, due to Small's actions, Anderson filed a Title IX complaint with UNE and further requested to withdraw from Small's class and for the professor to "cease and desist with her retaliatory behavior." (Id. ) Beginning November 12th, a security officer accompanied Small to her biochemistry lectures. (Id., PageID # 96.) Later that month, UNE evicted Anderson from his dormitory. (Id. )

During this period, other UNE students allegedly armed themselves with knives to defend themselves from Anderson. On December 4th, Anderson's father spoke with UNE's head of security and requested that UNE investigate the "portrayal of Anderson as a threat on campus" and the alleged knife-wielding students. (Id. ) Later that month, UNE evicted Anderson from campus and required him to attend classes remotely while living in a nearby hotel.

In December 2018, UNE claimed to have completed its investigation into Anderson's Title IX complaint. On January 2, 2019, Anderson's father notified UNE of errors in UNE's investigative report. Anderson also asserts that UNE's investigation failed to consider the retaliation he experienced from Small and UNE. Ultimately, Anderson withdrew from UNE. Anderson cited the "harassment and retaliation" he experienced as the reason for his "forced" withdrawal prior to graduation. (Id. )

III. DISCUSSION

Anderson initially filed suit against UNE in June 2021. (See Compl. (ECF No. 1).) Via his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16),¹ Anderson presses four claims against UNE. Two claims arise under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. : (1) Quid Pro Quo Harassment (Count V) and Retaliation (Count VI). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts claims for Negligence (Count III) and Breach of Contract (Count VII).²

UNE argues that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim in any of these four counts. (See generally Def. Mot. (ECF No. 18).) The Court initially considers Defendant's arguments that Plaintiff fails to state any plausible claim under Title IX.

A. Title IX Quid Pro Quo Harassment (Count V)

"Title IX creates an implied private right of action against federal funding recipients for money damages ... when a Title IX funding recipient is deliberately indifferent to known acts of sexual harassment of a student by a teacher." Doe v. Pawtucket Sch. Dep't, 969 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). As Plaintiff acknowledges,³ a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim under Title IX requires Plaintiff to show the following elements: (1) that he was subject to an unwelcome sexual advance and his reaction to this advance affected tangible aspects of his education; (2) that an appropriate person at the educational institution had actual notice of this harassment; and (3) that the institutional response amounted to...