Bray v. Worcester Polytechnic Institute

596 F.Supp.3d 142

Mark BRAY, Plaintiff,

v.WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE and Laurie Leshin, President of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Defendant.

CIV. ACT. NO. 21-40049-TSH

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Filed March 30, 2022

Adam P. Beck, Andover, MA, for Plaintiff.

Scott A. Roberts, Mark MacChi, Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Scott A. Roberts, Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Laurie Leshin.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

Hillman, D.J.

Introduction

Mark Bray ("Bray" or "Plaintiff") has filed a Second Amended Complaint against Worcester Polytechnic Institute ("WPI"), and Laurie Leshin, President of WPI ("President Leshin") alleging claims for violation of the Mass.Gen.L. ch. 51B, the Massachusetts Fair Housing Act (Count I), Libel (Count II), Breach of Contract (Count III), Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count IV), Tortious Interference with Business (Count V), Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Count VI), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Docket VII), Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count VIII), violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) ("Title IX") (Count IX), violation of Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93, § 102, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, (Count X), Violation of the Equal Protection Act, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights Pt. 1, Art. 1 (Count XI), violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. ("Title VI") (Count XII), and Negligence (Count XIII). Bray asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action because he has alleged claims under federal law, i.e. , violation of Titles VI and IX.

Bray's suit against the Defendants arises out of disciplinary measures imposed against by WPI in connection with a complaint brought against him by a fellow student. More specifically, a white female ("E.S.") filed a complaint against Bray (an African American male) for his having allegedly groped her breast at an off-campus party. After a hearing held pursuant to procedures set forth in the WPI Student Code of Conduct ("Code"), Bray was found to have acted in violation of the Code and sanctioned. Bray's claims arise out of the hearing procedures afforded to him and the discipline imposed.

This Memorandum of Decision and Order addresses Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss All Claims With Prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, that motion is granted, in part (Plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed). Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims on the merits is denied, however, those claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Standard of Review ¹

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court "must assume the truth of all well-plead[ed] facts and give plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom." Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. , 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Rogan v. Menino , 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1999) ). To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). That is, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal citations omitted). The standard "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id.

"The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Dismissal is appropriate if plaintiff's well-pleaded facts do not "possess enough heft to show that plaintiff is entitled to relief." Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm. , LLC , 521 F.3d 76, 84 (1st Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and original alterations omitted). "The relevant inquiry focuses on the reasonableness of the inference of liability that the plaintiff is asking the court to draw from the facts alleged in the complaint." Ocasio-Hernàndez v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2011).

Facts ^{2 ,3}

The Encounter Between Bray and E.S.

On the night of November 7, 2020, Bray, then a student at WPI, attended an off-campus party where he consumed alcohol and interacted with another WPI student, E.S. After the party, Bray learned that E.S. had told other students that he had grabbed her breast during the party, an incident about which Bray had no memory. Because Bray "felt so guilty over the idea that anything like the described incident may have happened," Bray asked one of his friends to call E.S. Bray spoke with E.S. and told her that he "did not remember the incident," and he "apologized if [E.S.] in any way was uncomfortable." E.S. "was angry at the conversation and did not accept the apology," and she told Bray that she was still deciding whether to raise an official complaint against him. E.S. subsequently filed a complaint under the Code, in which she alleged that, during the party, Bray reached under her shirt and "grabbed [her] breast" as E.S. was walking by Bray and his girlfriend (hereafter, the "Incident").

The WPI Student Code of Conduct: E.S. Files a Complaint against Bray and a Hearing is Held Before the CHB Panel

The Code is publicly available and accessible on the internet. Pursuant to the Code, each WPI student is responsible for reading and understanding WPI's expectations, which are documented therein. By enrolling at WPI, students voluntarily agree to comply with the standards of performance and behavior described in the Code and in WPI's policies. The most updated version of the Code is published online. It states within the Code that students with questions or concerns about the Code can contact WPI administration.

The Code provides the process for resolving matters "in which students ... allegedly violate the standards of the WPI community." Under the Code, any person may submit a written complaint to the Dean of Students Office alleging that another student violated the Code or other WPI policy or standard (a "Complainant"). The Code provides that after a complaint is received, WPI will provide written notice to the accused student (the "Respondent"), advise the Respondent of the details of the alleged violation, and invite the Respondent to schedule a meeting with a "Conduct Officer."

On February 17, 2021, Bray received a letter (the "Notice Letter") from WPI Assistant Dean of Students Emily Perlow ("Dean Perlow") informing him that he was being charged with three violations of the Code in connection with E.S.’s allegation that he grabbed her breast at the party on November 7^th. The Notice Letter specifically informed Bray that he had been "charged with alleged violations of the WPI Code of Conduct" and identified the specific sections of the Code that he was alleged to have violated. After receiving the written notice of the charges against him, Bray attended an administrative hearing with Dean Perlow, who served as the Conduct Officer for E.S.’s complaint. Because the charges were not resolved after the administrative hearing, the matter proceeded to a hearing before a panel of the Campus Hearing Board ("CHB").

The Code provides that a CHB hearing will be scheduled as soon as reasonably possible based on the availability of the Complainant, Respondent, and CHB members, and that the Respondent is to be provided written notice of the hearing. Consistent with these provisions, Bray received written notice via email of the scheduling of a CHB hearing on April 22, 2021. Over a month before the CHB hearing, Bray was offered a staff member, Tracy Baldelli, to serve as his advisor, and Bray met with Ms. Baldelli twice (once in early March 2021, and once a few days before the April 22^nd hearing). Further, on April 1, 2021, Bray was emailed information concerning the date, time, and Zoom link for the CHB hearing, as well as information identifying the Chair of the CHB panel, the members of the CHB panel, the alternates for the panel, and the case officer. E.S. knew Dean Perlow and some member of the CHB panel (including the designated Chair) because she has previously participated in disciplinary proceedings for other students, that is, she served on the CHB panel or was otherwise involved the in the administrative aspect of other student's disciplinary hearings.

The Code outlines the procedures to be observed before and during a CHB hearing. Among other things, the Code provides that three days before the hearing, each party may submit documents that the party intends to submit at the hearing (which collectively comprise a "Prehearing Packet"). The Complainant, Respondent, and CHB panel members are given access to the Prehearing Packet before the hearing. Before the April 22^nd hearing, E.S. and Bray submitted documents for inclusion in the Prehearing Packet. In his Prehearing Packet, Bray submitted a "character reference" from a professor and three identical statements from individuals (identified as C.B., S.K. and O.C.) who attended the November 7^th party. In their statements, C.B., S.K., and O.C. stated that they "never saw" Bray and E.S. "alone together" and "never saw" Bray "touch" or "engage in a sexual manner" with E.S.

The Code also describes the procedures that will be "generally adhere[d] to" during the hearing. Per the Code, the hearing begins with the Chair reading the alleged violations of the Code and asking the Respondent to plead either "Not Responsible" or "Responsible." Thereafter, both the Complainant and Respondent are provided an opportunity to make an opening statement, to call witnesses, to present evidence,...