Sonoiki v. Harvard Univ.

DAMILARE SONOIKI, Plaintiff, v. HARVARD UNIVERSITY et al., Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-12172

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

June 22, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CASPER, J.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Damilare Sonoiki ("Sonoiki") has filed this lawsuit against Defendants Harvard University, Harvard University Board of Overseers and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, "Harvard"). Sonoiki brings claims for breach of contract (Count I), denial of basic fairness (Count II), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count III) and estoppel and reliance (Count IV). The claims arise from a disciplinary process against him for allegations of separate incidents of sexual misconduct by three students filed in May and June 2013 and resulting in his dismissal from Harvard College. D. 1 ¶¶ 374-432. Harvard moved to dismiss all claims. D. 23. For the reasons stated below, the Court ALLOWS the motion to dismiss.

II. Standard of Review

To decide a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must determine if the well-pled facts alleged "plausibly narrate a claim for relief." Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). At this stage, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that its claims are facially plausible. Garcia-Catalán v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 102 (1st Cir. 2013). Plausible means "more than a sheer possibility" and permits the Court to incorporate a contextual analysis of the facts. Id. at 102-03 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). This determination requires a two-step inquiry. Id. at 103. First, the Court must distinguish the factual allegations from the conclusory legal allegations in the complaint. Id. Second, taking plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court should be able to draw "the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678); Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2011). The Court is not required to accept as true any legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (noting that "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions"). Even if the facts in a complaint are well-pled, dismissal is warranted where the allegations in the complaint fail to support a viable claim. See Morales-Tanon v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 524 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 2008); Diaz-Ramos v. Hyundai Motor Co., 501 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 2007).

III. Factual Background

Except as otherwise stated, the following facts are based upon the allegations in the complaint, D. 1, including the documents fairly incorporated therein, Rodi v. S. New England Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 12 (1st Cir. 2004), and the Court accepts them, as required at this stage, as true for consideration of the pending motion to dismiss.

A. The Alleged Sexual Assaults

Sonoiki enrolled at Harvard as part of the class of 2013. D. 1 ¶ 19. On May 28, 2013, two days prior to his graduation, two fellow students, Ann and Cindy,¹ filed Title IX complaints against Sonoiki with the Administrative Board of Harvard College (the "Ad Board") alleging that Sonoiki had sexually assaulted them in September 2011 and May 2013, respectively. See D. 1 ¶¶ 82-84. On May 29, 2013, Sonoiki spoke to the graduating class as the class day orator. D. 1 ¶ 90. The following day, Sonoiki walked at graduation, but, given the pendency of the sexual assault complaints against him, did not receive his diploma. See D. 1 ¶¶ 90, 93. On June 4, 2013, five days later, another student, Betty, filed an additional Title IX complaint against Sonoiki with the Ad Board, alleging that Sonoiki had sexually assaulted her during the summer of 2012 when she lived with him while the two were interning in New York City. D. 1 ¶ 88.

1. Ann

Ann's Title IX complaint against Sonoiki arose out of an incident that occurred after a party in September 2011. D. 1 ¶¶ 46-50; D. 28-1 at 3. Ann alleged that she "blacked out" at the event and did not recall leaving with Sonoiki. D. 1 ¶ 50; D. 28-1 at 10. She further alleged that she woke up to Sonoiki having sex with her and that she never consented to any sexual activity with Sonoiki. D. 1 ¶ 50; D. 28-1 at 10. Sonoiki alleges that there was no indication that Ann was incapacitated and that their sexual encounter was consensual and was not "accompanied by physical coercion or the threat of bodily injury." D. 1 ¶ 47; D. 28-1 at 16.

2. Betty

Betty's allegations resulted from conduct she alleged occurred while she and Sonoiki were roommates in New York City during the summer of 2012. D. 1 ¶¶ 53-59; D. 28-2 at 3. Betty and Sonoiki, who were friends, decided to live together in a studio apartment while interning for the summer. D. 1 ¶¶ 52-53. The apartment only had one bed and a couch, so the two agreed that they would share the bed. D. 1 ¶ 54. Betty alleged that, early in the summer, she awoke multiple times to Sonoiki having sexual intercourse with her without her consent. D. 1 ¶ 57; D. 28-2 at 9. Betty further acknowledged that later in the summer she engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with Sonoiki. D. 1 ¶ 57; D. 28-2 at 11. Sonoiki alleges that every instance of sexual contact between him and Betty was consensual. D. 1 ¶ 56.

3. Cindy

Cindy alleged that Sonoiki sexually assaulted her during a formal event on campus on May 7, 2013. D. 1 ¶¶ 64-68; D. 28-3 at 11. Cindy stated that she and Sonoiki went to the basement of the building in which the event was taking place and were kissing when Sonoiki knelt down and began performing oral sex on Cindy without her consent. See D. 28-3 at 11. She further alleged that she asked him to stop multiple times and that he eventually did, but that he then spun her around, bent her over and began having sexual intercourse with her against her will. D. 28-3 at 11-12. Sonoiki counters that Cindy led him down the stairs and that the two engaged in a consensual sexual encounter. D. 1 ¶ 66. On the morning following the alleged incident, Cindy went to Harvard's health and human services center seeking emergency contraception and treatment. D. 1 ¶ 67.

B. Harvard's Disciplinary Policies

The 2012-2013 Harvard Student Handbook, (the "Handbook"), which was in effect at the time the complaints against Sonoiki were made, included multiple policies related to student conduct at Harvard, including (1) the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities (the "Rights Policy"); (2) the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Policy on Rape, Sexual Assault, and Other Sexual Misconduct (the "Sexual Misconduct Policy") and (3) the General Regulations for the Administrative Board of Harvard College (the "Ad Board Regulations"). D. 1 ¶ 97. Additional Ad Board policies for handling sexual misconduct complaints were included in: (1) the "Administrative Board of Harvard College: Information for students facing allegations in a peer dispute case" (the "Student Information Form"); (2) the "Administrative Board of Harvard College: General Information on Disciplinary Cases" (the "General Information Form"); (3) the "Administrative Board: Disciplinary Process for allegations involving a peer dispute" (the "Ad Board Chart"); (4) the "Administrative Board of Harvard College: Reconsideration and appeals" (the "Appeals Info Sheet"); (5) the "Administrative Board: Reconsideration and Appeals Process" (the "Appeals Process Chart"); and (6) the Faculty Council's procedural rules, known as the Rules of Faculty Procedure (the "Faculty Rules"). D. 1 ¶ 123.

1. Relevant Policies and Procedures

The Rights Policy in the Handbook states that "it is the responsibility of officers of administration . . . to give full and fair hearing to reasoned expressions of grievances . . . ." D. 1 ¶ 103; D. 1-1 at 2. The Handbook includes a "Faculty Policy Statement" of Sexual Harassment that states that "[t]he determination of what constitutes sexual harassment will vary with the particular circumstances, but it may be described generally as unwanted sexual behavior, such has as physical contact . . . which adversely affects the working or learning environment of anindividual." D. 1-1 at 5. The Sexual Misconduct Policy included in the Handbook defines sexual misconduct as encompassing rape, indecent assault and "other serious or persistent unwanted sexual contact or conduct, such as harassment, threats, or intimidation." D. 1-1 at 10-11; see D. 1 ¶ 109. The Sexual Misconduct Policy further defines rape as:

any act of sexual intercourse that takes place against a person's will or that is accompanied by physical coercion or the threat of bodily injury. Unwillingness may be expressed verbally or physically. Rape may also include intercourse with a person who is incapable of expressing unwillingness or is prevented from resisting, as a result of conditions including, but not limited to, those caused by the intake of alcohol or drugs. Rape includes not only unwilling or forced vaginal intercourse, but also the sexual penetration of any bodily orifice with a body part or other object.

D. 1 ¶ 110; D. 1-1 at 10-11. It further defines indecent assault and battery as involving "any unwanted touching or fondling of a sexual nature that is accompanied by physical force or threat of bodily injury." D. 1-1 at 11. The Sexual Misconduct Policy also clarifies that "being intoxicated does not diminish a student's responsibility in perpetrating rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct." D. 1-1 at 11. It provides that complaints of sexual misconduct "may be filed with the College according to the procedures of the [Ad Board] and on the website of the [Ad Board]." D. 1-1 at 13.

The Handbook further discusses procedures for handling complaints. The Ad Board Regulations advise that they contain only a "brief introduction" and state that students may consult the Ad Board website or the student's Resident Dean for more details. D. 1-2 at 1; see D. 1 ¶ 122. The Handbook...