Doe v. Columbia Univ.

551 F.Supp.3d 433

John DOE, Plaintiff,

v.COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

1:20-cv-06770-GHW

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed August 1, 2021

Andrew Todd Miltenberg, Philip Arwood Byler, Nesenoff & Miltenberg, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Gabrielle Tenzer, Roberta Ann Kaplan, Marcella Coburn, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge:

Plaintiff John Doe and Jane Does 1–4 were all students at Defendant Columbia University in the City of New York. During the course of Plaintiff's senior year, each of Jane Does 1–4 filed complaints alleging that Plaintiff had sexually assaulted them in violation of Columbia's Gender-Based Misconduct Policy. In response to each of those complaints, Columbia began a disciplinary process against Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff was a member of the student government and one of the Jane Does was a member of a student group advocating for Columbia to take sexual assault on campus more seriously, a campus news site published an article about the complaints. After the third complaint was filed, Columbia—without giving Plaintiff notice or a hearing—placed him on an interim suspension. Plaintiff filed a counter-complaint against Jane Doe 1 for sexual misconduct and against Jane Does 1–3 for harassment and retaliation, which Plaintiff alleges Columbia failed to investigate. In the midst of those disciplinary proceedings, Plaintiff was expelled from Columbia for email hacking. Ultimately, following his expulsion, Columbia found that Plaintiff had violated its Gender-Based Misconduct Policy with respect to Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 3, and Jane Doe 4. Plaintiff was found not responsible with respect to Jane Doe 2.

Plaintiff challenged his expulsion for email hacking and the Jane Doe 1 and 4 proceedings in Article 78 actions in state court. He was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit, bringing seven claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The crux of Plaintiff's Title IX claims is that Columbia discriminated against him because of his gender in imposing the interim suspension and in investigating and adjudicating the complaints filed by Jane Does 1, 3, and 4. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief—that his disciplinary record be expunged and that he be given a diploma—and damages. Because Plaintiff was independently expelled for email hacking, his claims for injunctive relief are not fairly traceable to the gender-based misconduct proceedings he challenges here, and he does not have standing to seek that injunctive relief. And because Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a similarly situated student who was treated better than he in the context of his interim suspension, his selective enforcement claim challenging the interim suspension also fails. Plaintiff has not alleged that he was sexually harassed, so he has not stated a deliberate indifference claim. Furthermore, Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from pursuing an erroneous outcome claim as to the Jane Doe 1 proceeding. Accordingly, Defendant's motion dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and damages arising from his expulsion and lack of diploma, Plaintiff's selective enforcement and Davis harassment claims regarding his interim suspension, and Plaintiff's erroneous outcome claim as to the Jane Doe 1 proceeding.

But Plaintiff has alleged procedural defects that may have affected the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings regarding both his interim suspension and the Jane Does 1, 3, and 4 complaints. Plaintiff has also alleged circumstances giving rise to a plausible inference of discriminatory intent by Columbia. Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated erroneous outcome claims with respect to the Jane Does 3 and 4 proceedings and his interim suspension. And Plaintiff has stated a selective enforcement claim with respect to the Jane Doe 1 complaint because he and Jane Doe 1 were similarly situated, and Columbia treated Jane Doe 1 better than Plaintiff. While Columbia investigated Jane Doe 1's complaint for sexual assault, it failed to investigate his counter-complaint against Jane Doe 1 for sexual misconduct and sexual exploitation. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to all other claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Plaintiff John Doe ("Plaintiff") was a student at Defendant Columbia University in the City of New York ("Defendant" or "Columbia"). Compl., Dkt. No. 14 ¶¶ 6–7. During the 2017–2018 school year, Plaintiff was named as a respondent in multiple complaints alleging that he had violated Columbia's Gender-Based Misconduct Policy.

1. Columbia's GBM Policy

Columbia's Gender-Based Misconduct Policy prohibits non-consensual sexual conduct, including "Sexual Assault: Intercourse," "Sexual Assault: Contact," "Dating Violence," "Sexual Exploitation," "Gender-Based Harassment," and "Sexual Harassment." Defs.’ Br. in Supp. Ex. A (the "GBM Policy" or the "GBM") at 4–6. It also prohibits retaliation against someone who has reported a gender-based misconduct complaint or has been the subject of a gender-based misconduct complaint. Id. at 7.

The GBM Policy outlines the procedures for investigating and resolving complaints of gender-based misconduct. When Columbia's Gender-Based Misconduct Office (the "GBM Office") receives a report of a violation, it "conducts an initial assessment to evaluate whether, if substantiated, the conduct constitutes a Policy violation and whether there is a reasonable basis to engage in the disciplinary process." Id. at 21. After a report is made, "[t]he University may also take interim measures to ensure the safety of all parties involved and to protect the integrity of the ongoing disciplinary process." Id. at 21.

In the investigation process, Columbia "will designate a two-person team ... to conduct an investigation into whether a violation of the Policy occurred." Id. 25. The investigative team "will speak to each party in detail about the allegation(s) and ask each party to provide a list of witnesses and/or any relevant documents or evidence to be considered." Id. at 25. The team "has the discretion to determine the relevance of any proffered witness and/or evidence and determine that certain witnesses and/or evidence should be included or excluded in the investigative process in light of the allegations and/or Policy set out here." Id. At the conclusion of the initial phase of the investigation, the investigative team "will provide to the Complainant and the Respondent, in writing, a Notice of Final Charges, which will include a description of the alleged Policy violation(s) that will be considered during the hearing process, if applicable." Id. at 27. The investigative team "will then prepare a report based on interview summaries, witness statements and other documents gathered during the investigation" and "will provide a redacted and watermarked copy of the report to the Complainant, Respondent, and/or their respective advisors for their review." Id. The parties may respond to the report's factual summary, provide additional information, and challenge its factual accuracy. Id. at 27. Throughout the process, students are entitled to an advisor, and may submit questions for the investigative team to pose to others as part of the investigation. Id. at 17, 27.

After the investigative team prepares its final report and makes a responsibility determination with respect to each party, either party may request a hearing. Id. at 28. The hearing panel then evaluates all relevant information in the investigative report and determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether a GBM Policy violation occurred. Id. If the hearing panel finds a student responsible, the matter proceeds to a sanctions phase. Id. at 31. Either party may appeal the hearing decision, the sanction, or both. Id.

2. The Environment at Columbia

Plaintiff makes many allegations regarding Columbia's gender bias. The Court will highlight the ones that are most significant in the Court's analysis. Plaintiff alleges that the GBM complaints at issue here and Columbia's investigation and resolution of those complaints took place against a backdrop of pressure on Columbia to take sexual assault more seriously and to crack down on perpetrators of sexual assault on campus.

In 2014, Emma Sulkowicz's visual arts senior thesis Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) "brought the scrutiny of national media" to Columbia's handling of sexual assault on campus. Compl. ¶ 104. Plaintiff alleges that this was a "particularly fraught moment in the conversation regarding campus sexual assault at Columbia." One of the student groups putting pressure on Columbia to tighten its sexual assault policies was called "No Red Tape." Ms. Sulkowicz said, "[i]t frustrates me that No Red Tape, the Coalition Against Sexual Violence, and so many other people are working our butts off to create as comprehensive a set of policy changes as we can—which we gave to the Columbia administration—but they haven't listened to us." Id. ¶ 103 n.96. Plaintiff alleges that in the wake of that moment, Columbia was "eager to indulge" the opinions of campus activists. Id. ¶ 104.

Plaintiff alleges that this pressure did not let up. In March of 2017, No Red Tape requested that Columbia "change their gender-based misconduct policy." Id. ¶ 103. Columbia "acquiesced just three months later." Id. Plaintiff alleges that "Columbia submitted to pressure in 2017–2018 from #MeToo and N[o] R[ed] T[ape]." Id.

3. GBM Incidents, Complaints, and Counter-Complaints

Four GBM complaints were filed against Plaintiff during the 2017–2018 school year, when Plaintiff was a senior at Columbia. Compl. ¶ 106. Between December 2017 and March 2018, each of Jane Does 1–4 filed separate complaints alleging that Plaintiff had engaged in various types of sexual misconduct in violation of the GBM. Id. ¶¶ 113, 118, 130, 133. During that time, Plaintiff also filed a...