Vengalattore v. Cornell Univ.

1

DR. MUKUND VENGALATTORE, Plaintiff, v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

No. 3:18-CV-1124 (GTS/TWD)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

September 10, 2024

APPEARANCES: NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE Counsel for Plaintiff BOND SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC Counsel for Defendant CORNELL UNIV. OFFICE OF COUNSEL Co-Counsel for Defendant

OF COUNSEL: KAITLYN D. SCHIRALDI, ESQ. KATHERINE B. NORMAN, ESQ. ZHONETTE M. BROWN, ESQ. COLLIN MICHAEL CARR, ESQ. JONATHAN B FELLOWS, ESQ. SUZANNE M. MESSER, ESQ. VALERIE L. DORN, ESQ. WENDY E. TARLOW, ESQ. CONRAD R. WOLAN, ESQ.

DECISION AND ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Currently before the Court, in this employment civil rights action brought by Dr. Mukund Vengalattore (“Plaintiff” or “Vengalattore”) against Cornell University (“Defendant” or “Cornell”) asserting claims of gender discrimination and defamation, is Cornell's motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 112.) For the reasons stated below, Cornell's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Procedural History

Vengalattore commenced this action on September 18, 2018, against Secretary of Education Betsy Devos, the U.S. Department of Education (collectively “the Federal Defendants”), and Cornell. (Dkt. No. 1 [Compl.].) The Federal Defendants moved to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21), and Cornell answered and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) (Dkt. Nos. 22, 23). In response, Vengalattore filed an Amended Complaint as of right. (Dkt. No. 31.)

Thereafter, the Federal Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 36), and Cornell moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed 12(c) and/or for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (Dkt. No. 41). The Court granted both the Federal Defendants' and Cornell's motions and dismissed Vengalattore's Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 59.) Vengalattore appealed the Court's Decision and Order. (Dkt. No. 61.)

On June 2, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the Court's Decision and Order to the extent that it dismissed the Title IX claim against Cornell for failure to state a claim and to the extent that the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Vengalattore's state-law claim for defamation, and affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII and due process claims against Cornell, as well as the dismissal of the claims against the Federal Defendants.^[1] (Dkt. No. 66, at 6.)^[2] Accordingly, the matter was remanded for discovery and further proceedings as appropriate. (Id.)

Thereafter, with the permission of the Court, Vengalattore filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 77, 79.) In the Second Amended Complaint, Vengalattore asserted claims of violation of Title IX and defamation. (Dkt. No. 77.) On January 31, 2024, Cornell filed its second motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Dkt. No. 112.)

B. Undisputed Material Facts

Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts have been asserted and supported with accurate record citations by Defendant in its Statement of Material Facts (Dkt. No. 112, Attach. 1) and either expressly admitted, or denied without a supporting record citation, by Plaintiff in his Response to that Statement (Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1).

Vengalattore was employed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics at Cornell from 2009 until 2018. (Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶ 1.) After several years at Cornell, Vengalattore was considered for a promotion to tenured professor, but his tenure application was ultimately denied.^[3] (Id. at ¶¶ 105, 118-19.)

Jane Roe was a graduate student at Cornell and worked in Vengalattore's laboratory from 2009 until 2012. (Id. at ¶ 3.) In May 2014, shortly after Vengalattore's tenure review began, Roe sent a letter to the tenure review committee, alleging that Vengalattore “‘constantly degrades students in a harassing and humiliating way' . . ., ‘did not respect boundaries' . . ., had picked up a power supply and thrown it at [Roe] and that he had called her ‘emotionally fragile.'” (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.) Roe also complained that Vengalattore “listed her name on a publication in [a] manner that had a sexual connotation.” (Id. at ¶ 9.)

According to Cornell, on or around November 2, 2014, “Roe informed Professor Ritchie Patterson . . . that she had been involved in a consensual romantic and sexual relationship with . . . Vengalattore from December 2010 until December 2011”; however, according to Vengalattore, Roe “conveyed her allegation to . . . Patterson before November 2, 2014 [and, indeed, as early as approximately September 24, 2014], and . . . the allegation included a claim that Roe and Vengalattore had engaged in sex after she told him no.” (Compare Dkt. No. 112, Attach. 1, at ¶ 5 with Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶ 5 [emphasis added].)^[4] Patterson informed Alan Mittman, Cornell's then-Title IX Deputy Coordinator and Director of Workforce Policy and Labor Relations (“WPLR”), of Roe's allegations. (Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶¶ 6-7.)

Mittman met with Vengalattore on November 25, 2014; however, he did not inform Vengalattore about Roe's allegations of a romantic relationship. (Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶¶ 12-14.)

On February 4, 2015, Roe sent Mittman an email purporting to provide a “summary” of topics they had discussed during a telephone call, including an accusation that, in December 2010, Vengalattore had raped her and that she and Vengalattore, thereafter, had carried on “‘a very power imbalanced, secret relationship . . . until December 2011.'” (Id. at ¶¶ 17-19; Dkt. No. 112, Attach. 25.) Mittman informed Ritter of Roe's allegations, and Ritter “indicated that she wanted the complaint to be investigated by WPLR.” (Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶¶ 38-39.) Accordingly, Mittman and his colleague Sarah Affel (collectively, “the investigators”) began to investigate Roe's allegations, first by interviewing Roe five times and then by arranging to meet with Vengalattore. (Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.) Mittman emailed Vengalattore at 1:23 p.m. on March 2, 2015, to schedule a meeting for the following day at 2:45 p.m., providing approximately twenty-five hours notice. (Id. at ¶ 41; Dkt. No. 112, Attach. 26, at 2.)

During meeting of the March 3, 2015, the investigators “informed [Vengalattore] that they were investigating allegations that he had engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with . . . Roe.”^[5] (Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶ 42.) Vengalattore denied that he and Roe had had a romantic or sexual relationship. (Id. at ¶ 43.) In addition to the interviews of Roe and Vengalattore, “the investigators interviewed twenty-four . . . witnesses and collected email communications and text messages.” (Id. at ¶ 46.) Vengalattore provided the investigators with the names of additional witnesses to interview. According to Cornell, it interviewed ten of thirteen witnesses identified by Vengalattore; however, according to Vengalattore, Cornell did not interview “at least” eleven of the “at least” twenty witnesses he had offered.^[6] (Compare Dkt. No. 112, Attach. 1, at ¶¶ 46-51 with Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶¶ 46-51.)

In September 2015, a final written report from the investigation (“the report”) was issued, “recommend[ing] that the Dean find that a preponderance of the credible evidence supports the conclusion that [Vengalattore] . . . had a romantic or sexual relationship with [Roe], a student he directly supervised,” but “that no specific finding be made as to whether the first sexual encounter rises to the level of sexual assault as defined by Policy 6.4,” which is Cornell's Title IX policy. (Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶ 83.) The report was submitted to Ritter and she adopted the recommendations therein, finding that Vengalattore had violated Cornell's “Romantic and Sexual Relationships” (or “RSR”) Policy and that Vengalattore had lied to the investigators when he denied having a sexual relationship with Roe. (Id. at ¶¶ 85-87.) Based on Ritter's findings, Vengalattore was suspended, without pay, for a two-week period, effective June 1, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 97.)

Vengalattore continues to deny that any romantic or sexual relationship occurred between Roe and himself. (Dkt. No. 118, at ¶ 27.) Vengalattore's “appointment as a faculty member at Cornell ended on June 30, 2018.” (Dkt. No. 117, Attach. 1, at ¶ 134.)

II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is warranted if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute of fact is “genuine” if “the [record] evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the [non-movant].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).^[7] As for the materiality requirement, a dispute of fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law ....Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists the Court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant. Id. at 255. In addition, “[the movant] bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the . . . [record] which it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). However, when the movant has met its initial burden, the non-movant must come forward with specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), (c),...