Doe v. Syracuse Univ.

1

JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

No. 5:18-cv-1100 (BKS/TWD)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 16, 2022

Plaintiff, pro se: Jane Doe Seoul, South Korea

For Defendant: Edward G. Melvin Barclay Damon LLP

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Hon Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jane Doe, ^[1] currently proceeding pro se, brings this Section 1983 and diversity action alleging various claims against Defendant Syracuse University relating to her expulsion from the University in 2015. (See generally Dkt. No. 1). Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiff opposed the motion and Defendant has replied. (Dkt. Nos. 54, 57). For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II.FACTS^[2]

A. Plaintiff's Allegations of Plagiarism & Resulting Probation

In the spring of 2015, Plaintiff, who is from South Korea, was enrolled as a full-time student at Syracuse University in an “integrated undergraduate and graduate program.” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 7). Plaintiff graduated in May 2015 with an undergraduate degree in Fine Arts and was scheduled to graduate in May 2016 with a graduate degree in Computer Science. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 7, 76).

While enrolled in a “Human Factors for Designers” course in the College of Visual and Performing Arts, Plaintiff “presented her own creative idea of [a] stress relief wrap.” (Id. ¶ 24). Plaintiff alleges that she later “became aware that another student” received an award at a competition sponsored by the Industrial Designers Society of America (“IDSA”) by “copying the Plaintiff's design concept used in the stress relief wrap without the Plaintiff's consent.” (Id. ¶ 25). Plaintiff alleges that she sought advice from professors and “intellectual property experts regarding the other person's use of her original design concept.” (Id. ¶ 27). Plaintiff alleges that the School of Information Studies and College of Visual and Performing Arts “encourage[] collaboration” but do not have a “safety procedure to prevent students from using” other students' ideas. (Id. ¶ 28). Plaintiff therefore “raised her concern” that another student may have used her design concept with the IDSA directly on April 29, 2015; the IDSA referred Plaintiff's concern to the University. (Id. ¶¶ 30-31, 103).

University faculty “launched an investigation, ” speaking with faculty members but not reviewing Plaintiff's design concept or interviewing Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 32). Plaintiff generally alleges that the University's investigation was not “proper” or “independent.” (Id. ¶¶ 33-36). On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff was informed that University faculty had filed a complaint against her for making false reports of academic dishonesty. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37).

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff attended an “Informal Resolution Meeting” with Eric Nestor, Associate Director of the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities to discuss the charges against her. (Id. ¶¶ 66, 84, 104; see generally Dkt. No. 10-9). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “threatened to expel” her if she did not admit that her actions violated the Code of Conduct, forcing her to accept the sanction of “academic probation.” (Id. ¶ 104). In a letter confirming the outcome of the meeting, Mr. Nestor stated that Plaintiff consulted with her “Procedural Advisor” prior to resolving her case but “chose not to include” the advisor in the meeting. (Dkt. No. 10-9, at 2). Plaintiff accepted responsibility for the charges of harassment, academic dishonesty, disorderly conduct, and violation of University policies, rules, or regulations. (Id.). Plaintiff and Mr. Nestor agreed that Plaintiff was not responsible for the charges of conduct “which threatens the mental health, physical health, or safety” of others and violation of any federal, state, or local law. (Id.). The letter further explained:

[Y]ou admitted in our meeting that on or about April 29, 2015, you accused other students of stealing your academic design plans. These claims were investigated by faculty and administrators within the College of Visual and Performing Arts and found to be unsubstantiated. Additionally, claims of academic design theft were investigated by the Syracuse University Academic Integrity Office and “no evidence of plagiarism in the sharing of ideas and concepts” was found to have occurred. . . . [Y]ou indicated your understanding of how accusing students of academic dishonesty was a violation of the University's Academic Integrity Policy, Section II.C.2 - Communication - Making a false report of academic dishonesty. You also indicated understanding that reporting such accusations verbally and in writing have the potential to injure the reputation of the accused. Finally, you indicated an understanding that continuing to communicate with faculty and staff regarding issues that have been resolved is harassing behavior.

(Id. at 3; see also Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 112 (quoting the same in part)). Plaintiff and Mr. Nestor agreed that Plaintiff would be “placed on a status of disciplinary probation through April 29, 2016.” (Dkt. No. 10-9, at 3).

B. Relationship with Student X & Resulting Expulsion

In the spring of 2015, Plaintiff entered into a “close personal and intimate” relationship with Student X, a third-year student at the University's law school. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 99). Plaintiff alleges that, on May 5, 2015, she reported that Student X had sexually assaulted her to staff counselor Carrie Brown at Defendant's Counseling Center. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 39-40, 55). Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Brown suggested that Plaintiff file a Title IX complaint against Student X and apply for a “No-Contact Order” against him at the University's Department of Public Safety. (Id. ¶ 40). Plaintiff alleges that she did not plan to apply for a No-Contact Order. (Id. ¶ 41). However, she “informed” “Syracuse Police” of the sexual assault on or about May 11, 2015. (Id. ¶ 56).^[3]

On May 12, 2015, Defendant “issued a temporary” No-Contact Order against Plaintiff to Student X. (Id. ¶ 42; see also Id. ¶¶ 14-15). Defendant's Police Officer Michael Patsos served the order on Plaintiff, allegedly threatening Plaintiff to sign the order “without having enough time to read [it] or explaining” the document to her. (Id. ¶ 42). Plaintiff alleges that at some point she “properly filed for a cross no-contact order because Student X abruptly and unexpectedly appeared several times on the campus and in her apartment late at night, ” but Defendant “rejected” her request and “ignored” her “pleas[] for safety concern and help.” (Id. ¶¶ 46-51).

On May 26, 2015, Student X filed a Title IX complaint against Plaintiff for stalking and harassment. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 54). Plaintiff alleges that the basis for Student X's complaint was that Plaintiff went to “retrieve” her car from “Student X's landlord's garage.” (Id. ¶¶ 44, 48-50). Plaintiff “peacefully” retrieved her car “without any attempt to contact her ex-boyfriend” and “did not even know Student X's whereabouts at the time of retrieval.” (Id. ¶¶ 48-49).

On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Title IX complaint against Student X with Sheila Johnson-Willis, Defendant's Title IX officer. (Id. ¶ 57). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “failed to investigate” Plaintiff's allegation of sexual assault. (Id. ¶¶ 58, 65, 70). Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Johnson-Willis interviewed Student X and drafted “an investigation report based on Student X's complaint against Plaintiff only.” (Id. ¶ 64). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “adopted” Officer Patsos's opinion that Plaintiff “had a pattern of misbehavior in the past” and “closed” her complaint of sexual assault against Student X. (Id. ¶¶ 67-68). She further alleges that Defendant's “failure to provide [a] proper investigation that . . . describes facts surrounding claims” violated the policy set forth by the “Student Conduct System Handbook.” (Id. ¶ 70).

On July 22, 2015, Student X filed for an order of protection against Plaintiff in Family Court. (Id. ¶ 60). The next day, Plaintiff filed a cross-petition for an order of protection. (Id. ¶ 61). The Family Court issued orders of protection “to both parties.” (Id. ¶ 62).

A hearing on Student X's complaint against Plaintiff was held before the University Conduct Board on September 10 2015. (See Dkt. No. 10-17). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not provide her with “a required pre-hearing meeting” to review the hearing process, as required by the Handbook. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 72-74). The Conduct Board found that Plaintiff was responsible for violating five sections of the Code of Student Conduct. (Dkt. No. 10-17, at 2). The Conduct Board found that “beginning on or about May 4, 2015, you harassed, stalked, and threatened a Syracuse University student. The Board also determined that you falsified information during the investigation and adjudication of these charges.” (Id.; see Dkt. No. 10-18, at 4-6 (Conduct Board hearing opinion detailing the Board's findings of fact); see also Dkt. No. I, ¶ 82 (summarizing “Defendant's reasons to decide on sanction of expulsion”)). Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant noted that Plaintiff “had previously taken responsibility for violating the Code of Student Conduct in a separate matter, ” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 83), the Conduct Board's opinion states that the Board “did not consider” the “academic integrity case . . . between the Respondent and the College of Visual and Performing Arts as relevant to this case, ” (Dkt. No. 10-18, at 6). The Conduct Board recommended a sanction of expulsion, citing Plaintiff'...