Doe v. Siena Coll.

1

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. SIENA COLLEGE, Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-1115 (BKS/TWD)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 17, 2023

Andrew T. Miltenberg Tara J. Davis Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP For Plaintiff

Suzanne M. Messer Liza R. Magley Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC For Defendant

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Hon Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff John Doe, a student at Defendant Siena College, filed this action alleging violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”); breach of contract; and violation of New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) § 296(4). (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 209-60). The same day, Plaintiff filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction “enjoining Defendant from enforcing Siena's October 25, 2022 final decision suspending Plaintiff from Siena for two years and placing a notation on his transcript, and directing Defendant to immediately restore Plaintiff's access to all courses and academic resources necessary for the completion of his undergraduate studies, and, upon successful completion of his degree requirements, to timely confer Plaintiff's degree.” (Dkt. No. 2-6, at 6). On October 31, 2022, the Court held a video teleconference with the parties, who advised that they had reached an agreement to hold in abeyance Plaintiff's suspension, subject to certain conditions, until a decision on the motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby mooting the motion for a TRO. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is now fully briefed, (Dkt. Nos. 17, 21, 22), and the Court held an evidentiary hearing on December 16, 2022. Having carefully considered all of the parties' submissions and the evidence and argument at the hearing, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The following constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

II. BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiff is a student at Siena College with an expected graduation date of May 2023. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 45). He is a member of Siena College's Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (“ROTC”) and has signed a contract to serve as Second Lieutenant with the United States Army following his graduation. (Id. ¶ 45; Dkt. No. 2-1, ¶ 10). Jane Roe, a student at Siena College with an expected graduation date of May 2025, (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 46), filed a Title IX complaint at Siena College alleging sexual misconduct against Plaintiff in February 2022. This action arises out of Defendant's decision finding Plaintiff responsible for sexual misconduct and imposing a sanction consisting of a two-year suspension and a notation on Plaintiff's transcript indicating that he was suspended after being found responsible for a code of conduct violation.

A. Federal Guidance and Pressure on Defendant Regarding Sexual Misconduct

1. Federal Guidance

On April 14, 2011, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) issued a guidance letter, known as the “April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter,” to colleges and universities receiving federal funding. (Id. ¶ 13). The Dear Colleague Letter “minimized due process protections” for individuals accused of sexual misconduct by, for example, mandating the adoption of a “more likely than not” burden of proof. (Id. ¶ 15). The OCR issued additional directives in April 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18). That same month, the White House issued a report called “Not Alone,” which “included a warning that if the OCR finds a school in violation of Title IX, the ‘school risks losing federal funds.'” (Id. ¶ 19). The OCR “has conducted over five hundred investigations of colleges for the potential mishandling of complaints of sexual misconduct.” (Id. ¶ 20). While Siena College has not been the subject of an investigation, (Dkt. No. 17-7, ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 17-12, ¶ 82), Plaintiff alleges that “[c]olleges and universities, including Siena, were fearful of and concerned about being investigated or sanctioned by the [Department of Education] and/or of potential Title IX lawsuits by the [Department of Justice],” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 21). Such higher education institutions therefore “have limited procedural protections afforded to males . . . in sexual misconduct cases.” (Id.).

On September 22, 2017, the OCR rescinded the Dear Colleague Letter and issued interim guidance regarding the adjudication of sexual misconduct complaints. (Id. ¶ 22). The Office noted that it had placed “improper pressure . . . to adopt procedures that do not afford fundamental fairness” and which are not required by Title IX. (Id. ¶ 23). Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that Defendant did not change its Title IX policy or procedures in response to the rescission of the Dear Colleague Letter. (Id. ¶ 25). The Department of Education issued new Title IX regulations in May 2020, which provide respondents with procedural rights such as the right to a meaningful live hearing. (Id. ¶ 28). Lois Goland, Defendant's Title IX Coordinator, expressed her lack of support for this new Title IX rule because the opportunity for cross-examination might deter individuals from coming forward with complaints. (Id. ¶ 29 (citing Rick Karlin, “Revised assault rules debated,” WRAL News (Nov. 20, 2018), https://www.wral.com/revised-assault-rules-debated/18009250/)).

2. Pressure on Defendant

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “has faced student pressure regarding its failure to adequately address sexual misconduct complaints made against male students and faculty.” (Id. ¶ 37). In 2016, for example, a female student sued Defendant for negligently failing to patrol residence areas, thereby “allowing a male to viciously rape her.” (Id. ¶ 38). In 2018, Ms. Goland, Title IX Associate Danielle Joyce, Siena students, and the College's “marketing team” collaborated to create a “NO MORE” campaign on the “issue of campus sexual assault.” NO MORE, “How One College Created a Student-Driven NO MORE Campaign for Sexual Assault Awareness Month,” (May 9, 2018), https://nomore.org/siena-college-says-no-more/. The campaign included the creation of a thirty-second video featuring students “saying NO MORE to sexual assault.” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 39). The majority of the lines in this video reference “a female victim and a male perpetrator.” (Id.). Ms. Joyce asserts, however, that the campaign was not “gender-driven.” (Dkt. No. 17-7, ¶ 19). Finally, Plaintiff alleges, as an example of student pressure on Defendant, a female student's 2021 article “pondering” what the College had done to make students feel safe and secure in the face of multiple reported sexual assaults. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 41).

In response, Defendant asserts that there is “no statistical support” for the allegation that pressure on the College “has resulted in bias against males.” (Dkt. No. 17-7, ¶ 23). Between 2018 and 2022, Defendant received sixteen formal complaints of sexual misconduct that “went through the adjudication process.” (Id.; see Dkt. No. 17-11 (table containing data regarding these 16 complaints)). Nine of these complaints involved allegations of sexual assault, and two of those male respondents were found responsible while seven were found not responsible. (Dkt. No. 17-7, ¶ 23). One complaint, which involved allegations of dating violence, involved a male complainant and a female respondent, and the female respondent was found responsible. (Id. ¶ 24).

B. February 12-13, 2022 Incident Between Plaintiff and Roe^[2]

On the evening of February 12, 2022, Plaintiff was spending time with his friends on campus and “casually drinking.” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 47-48). At approximately 12:10 a.m. on the morning of February 13, Plaintiff and some of his friends began walking towards an off-campus party and, on the way, met Roe and two of her friends, R.L. and J.M. (Id. ¶¶ 49-50).^[3] Plaintiff's friend invited the three women back to their dorm, and Plaintiff “had no direct interaction with Roe until returning back to the dorm building.” (Id. ¶ 51). According to Plaintiff, none of the women “appeared intoxicated at this time” and all were “walking steadily” and “able to navigate the icy and snowy walkways.” (Id. ¶ 52).^[4] Back at the dorm, the group entered the room of student A.J. (Id. ¶ 53). Plaintiff asserts that he did not see Roe, R.L., or J.M. consume any alcohol while in A.J.'s room. (Id. ¶ 54).

1. Meeting in A.J.'s Room

According to Plaintiff, Roe began talking to several of Plaintiff's male friends, and then approached a female friend, S.G., and asked for S.G.'s opinion of the men in the room. (Id. ¶ 55). Roe told S.G. that she was “not looking for a relationship, and that she was only looking for sex.” (Id. ¶ 56). S.G. told Roe that Plaintiff was also “not looking for a relationship at the time.” (Id. ¶ 57; see also Dkt. No. 17-18, at 11 (S.G. told investigator that Roe asked what S.G. “thought of” Plaintiff and that S.G. told Roe that “he was a good guy and a friend, but that he was not interested in a relationship”); Dkt. No. 17-18, at 13 (Plaintiff's roommate T.R. overhead S.G. tell Roe that Plaintiff “was not interested in a relationship”)). Roe, on the other hand, told the investigator that she remembered “being warned by [S.G.] to stay away from two guys in the room-one of them being [Plaintiff],” and that she was unable to “fully process” this warning due to her alcohol consumption. (Dkt. No. 17-18, at 11).^[5] While Plaintiff and Roe both state that they left for Plaintiff's room together consensually, (Dkt. No. 17-18, at 13), they provided very different versions of the events that occurred after Roe's conversation with S.G.

2. Plaintiff's Version...