1
JOHN DOE, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK PURCHASE COLLEGE, Defendant.
No. 21-CV-8417 (KMK)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
July 27, 2022
Diana Fabi, Esq. Michael DiBenedetto, Esq. Imran Ansari, Esq. Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, PC
Mark Klein, Esq. Mark Ferguson, Esq. Office of the New York Attorney General
OPINION & ORDER
KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
John Doe (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pseudonymously, brings this Action against the State University of New York (“SUNY”) Purchase College (“SUNY Purchase” or “Defendant”), alleging that Defendant violated his rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. (“Title IX”) and New York state law while Plaintiff was a student at SUNY Purchase via an allegedly biased investigation into and erroneous adjudication of a complaint of sexual assault made against Plaintiff by a female classmate. (See generally Compl.
2
(Dkt. No. 1).)[1] Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff from harassment by other students upon his return to campus after the complaint was adjudicated, which led to Plaintiff's withdrawal from the school. (See id.) Before the Court is Defendant's Motion To Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 23).) For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and are assumed to be true for purposes of resolving the instant Motion. See Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-N.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 9 F.4th 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
1. Events of September 19, 2017
Plaintiff began attending SUNY Purchase in the Fall of 2016 as a freshman in SUNY Purchase's Bachelor of Fine Arts program for acting. (See Compl. ¶¶ 68-69.) On Wednesday,
3
April 19, 2017, a group of five SUNY Purchase students gathered in Plaintiff's dormitory suite in the Crossroads Residence Hall following a theater rehearsal to celebrate one of the student's birthdays and to watch a movie. (See id. ¶¶ 9-11.) Two of those students were Plaintiff and Jane Roe (“Roe”), a female SUNY Purchase student and then a friend of Plaintiff's.[2] (See Id. ¶¶ 7, 10.) Plaintiff alleges that both he and Roe consumed a portion of a 1.5-liter bottle of red wine that was shared among all five students, and that Roe was affectionate with Plaintiff throughout the evening. (See id. ¶¶ 11-12.) After the students finished watching the movie, Plaintiff and certain others left to attend another party; Roe remained in the dormitory suite with one of Plaintiff's suitemates and waited for Plaintiff to return. (See id. ¶ 13.) Approximately three hours later, Plaintiff alleges that he returned to the suite and Roe asked to spend the night with Plaintiff. (See id. ¶¶ 14-17.)
Plaintiff and Roe walked into Plaintiff's bedroom, where Plaintiff's roommate was already sleeping, and Roe changed into a pair of Plaintiff's pajamas before the two got into Plaintiff's bed. (See id. ¶¶ 17-19.) Plaintiff alleges that at this point, he and Roe began to mutually kiss one another and engage in foreplay, and Roe assisted Plaintiff in removing the pajama pants that she was wearing. (See id. ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff alleges that before he and Roe engaged in sexual intercourse, Roe asked him to wear a condom and he did. (See id. ¶ 22.) The two then engaged in sexual intercourse, after which Plaintiff briefly left the room to smoke a cigarette. (See id. ¶¶ 23-24.) Plaintiff alleges that when he returned to the room, Roe stayed in his bed and the two mutually kissed again. (See id. ¶ 24.) At approximately 1:30am, Roe borrowed a shirt from Plaintiff to go to the bathroom, left Plaintiff's room, and did not return. (See id. ¶ 25.)
4
Plaintiff sent Roe a text message after she left his room, but Roe did not respond. (See Id. ¶ 26.) The following day, Plaintiff and Roe saw one another at a theater rehearsal and Plaintiff alleges that Roe behaved awkwardly. (See id. ¶ 27.) The day after that, Roe sent Plaintiff a text message and asked Plaintiff if she could retrieve her belongings from Plaintiff's room. (See Id. ¶ 28.) On April 23, 2017, Roe went to the SUNY Purchase campus police and reported that Plaintiff had sexually assaulted her. (See id. ¶¶ 30, 71.) When Roe made her initial report to campus police, she stated that she was unable to consent to any sexual acts because she was having an anxiety attack. (See id. ¶ 74.)
2. Investigation and Adjudication of Jane Roe's Complaint
On April 23, 2017, Roe's report was referred to SUNY Purchase's Title IX Coordinator/Title IX Investigator Ricardo Espinales (“Espinales”). (See id. ¶ 76.) On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff was verbally informed that he was under a “no contact order” by SUNY Purchase's Director of Community Standards Melissa Glazer (“Glazer”), but alleges at that time he was not advised why the order was issued or that Roe had reported a sexual assault. (See Id. ¶ 77.) Plaintiff alleges that on April 26, 2017, Glazer told Plaintiff that she had received a report of sexual assault but was not aware of any further details, and that it was Plaintiff's responsibility to remove himself from locations where Roe was present. (See id. ¶ 78.)
Espinales conducted his investigation of Roe's allegations between May 2 and June 1, 2017. (See id. ¶ 79.) Espinales interviewed Roe on May 2, 2017, which was followed by at least one other interview on May 15, 2017 and email communications with Roe. (See id. ¶¶ 80-83.) Espinales interviewed Plaintiff on May 9, 2017; however, Plaintiff alleges that Espinales did not provide Plaintiff with a “disciplinary specification of charges” letter as required by SUNY Purchase's Code of Conduct prior to the interview. (See id. ¶ 84.) Plaintiff alleges that it was during this interview that he first learned the details of Roe's allegations against him. (See id.
5
¶ 85.) Espinales also interviewed three additional students over the course of his investigation of Roe's allegations, but did not interview Plaintiff's roommate, who was in the room during Plaintiff and Roe's sexual encounter. (See id. ¶¶ 87-88.)
On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff was charged with violating three separate provisions of SUNY Purchase's Code of Conduct. (See id. ¶ 90.) Two of those provisions concerned underage consumption of alcohol; the third, C.8, concerned sexual assault. (See id.) Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive SUNY Purchase's “[c]harging [n]otice” until July 10, 2017, and that the notice failed to either “detail the factual allegations in support of the charges” or “put [Plaintiff] on notice that he would be subject to sanctions after any suspension from the school had been served.” (Id. ¶¶ 91-92.) Plaintiff ultimately admitted and accepted responsibility for the code violations concerning underage alcohol consumption but denied his charged violation of C.8. (See id. ¶¶ 93, 95.)
On July 27, 2017, a three-member administrative hearing board was convened to adjudicate Plaintiff's charged violation of C.8. (See id. ¶ 97.) Roe testified at the hearing and claimed during her testimony that she was incapable of consenting to sexual activity due to her consumption of alcohol, Adderall, and Lexapro. (See id. ¶ 101.) Additional witnesses also testified. (See id. ¶¶ 110-12.) On July 31, 2017, the hearing board issued a decision in which it found Roe's testimony to be “conflicting and unreliable as it pertained to her inability to consent,” but that Plaintiff “did not obtain affirmative consent to place his hands under Roe's shirt, to conduct foreplay on Roe, or to engage in sexual intercourse with Roe.” (Id. ¶¶ 114, 116 (alterations and quotation marks omitted).) The board imposed the following sanctions: (1) suspension and “persona non grata” status through August 1, 2018; (2) residence suspension with “residence area persona non grata” status for one academic semester upon Plaintiff's return
6
to campus; (3) disciplinary probation for one calendar year upon Plaintiff's return to campus; and (4) a wellness/substance education class to be completed prior to Plaintiff's return to campus. (See id. ¶ 35.)
Plaintiff appealed the decision on August 3, 2017; his appeal was denied on August 14, 2017. (See id. ¶¶ 119, 120.)
3. Plaintiff's Return to Campus and Withdrawal
As a result of the adjudication, Plaintiff was barred from returning to campus for the 2017-18 academic year, (see id. ¶ 40); Plaintiff returned to SUNY Purchase in September 2018 as a sophomore, (see id. ¶ 45). Because Plaintiff was not permitted to live in SUNY Purchase's residential dormitories, he lived alone in off-campus housing miles from campus and was required to take a bus to and from campus to attend classes. (See id. ¶ 46.) Plaintiff was also barred from entering SUNY Purchase's residential dormitories, holding office in any student group or organization, holding certain employment positions on campus, and participating in study-abroad programs. (See id. ¶¶ 47-48.)
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the adjudication, Plaintiff was ostracized and harassed by his fellow students; harassment which SUNY Purchase did nothing to prevent or ameliorate even after being informed of the situation by Plaintiff's father. (See id. ¶¶ 50-54.) On one occasion, one of Plaintiff's classmates posted a picture of Plaintiff on social media and labeled Plaintiff a “rapist.” (Id. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff alleges that he lodged a formal complaint with SUNY Purchase concerning this post but that there were no consequences. (See id. ¶ 54.)
Plaintiff alleges that because he was “[d]istraught and unable to endure the isolation, harassment, and shunning, that he experienced both inside and outside the classroom, and because [SUNY Purchase] chose not to protect...
