Med School Didn’t Violate Accuser’s Title IX Rights by Imposing Only a 20-Month Suspension on Student Found Responsible for Sexual Assault

An excerpt from yesterday’s decision by Judge Andrew Carter (S.D.N.Y.) in Roe v. Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai:

The [allegations in the Complaint] are assumed to be true for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss.

In Plaintiff Jane Roe’s final semester as a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (“Defendant”), she reported that a male student, John Doe, had sexually assaulted her in a campus residence hall. After conducting an investigation, Defendant found John Doe responsible for sexual assault and imposed a 20-month suspension on him. Defendant’s written determination of John Doe’s responsibility found suspension to be the appropriate sanction “[b]ecause the assault did not involve forcible rape or penetration; occurred while the Respondent was under the influence of alcohol; and because there was no evidence presented to the panel of any similar or related acts when the Respondent was not inebriated,” noting that suspension would grant John Doe the “opportunity to complete his medical training.”

Plaintiff appealed Defendant’s chosen sanction and challenged the factors which Defendant applied to come to its decision. In response, Defendant affirmed its prior decision.

Plaintiff sued under Title IX, and the court rejected her claim; some excerpts:

While a Plaintiff who was the reporting party in the underlying disciplinary proceedings is not foreclosed from bringing an erroneous outcome or selective enforcement claim, Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the standard. First, Plaintiff agrees with the outcome of the underlying proceedings and therefore does not allege that the outcome was “erroneous.” Plaintiff moreover fails to provide a relative comparator, which is fatal to her selective enforcement claim.

Plaintiff’s remaining claims fare no better. Plaintiff has failed to allege circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination against her because of her sex or gender. Plaintiff relies on allegations that the male perpetrator was favored, but she provides no nexus between either party’s gender and the alleged bias.

Finally, Plaintiff’s hostile environment claim fails because Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to show that Defendant did not “adequately respond” to a hostile educational environment.

Here’s an excerpt of the hostile educational environment analysis:

Plaintiff’s hostile environment claim also fails. To state a claim for hostile environment under Title IX, a Plaintiff must plausibly allege “that [s]he subjectively perceived the environment to be hostile or abusive and that the environment objectively was hostile or abusive, that is, that it was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] educational environment.” In order to hold an educational institution liable for a hostile educational environment, the Plaintiff must also show “that a school official with ‘authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures’ had ‘actual knowledge’ of the discrimination and failed to adequately respond.”

Even assuming that Plaintiff satisfies the objective and subjective standards, Plaintiff’s claim fails because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant “failed to adequately respond.” … An educational institution need only “take[] timely and reasonable measures to end the harassment”; the measures need not be ultimately effective, only “taken in good faith.”

Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to find that the remedy was “clearly unreasonable” or was not prescribed in good faith. Institutions are afforded latitude in fashioning remedies. It is well settled that “courts should refrain from second-guessing the disciplinary decisions made by school administrators.” Administrators are not required to issue a particular disciplinary action, including expulsion or no proximity orders.

Here, the administrators clearly laid out their reasoning for the imposed sanctions. The reasoning referenced the relevant policies; discussed the basis for referencing one policy more extensively than the other; explained that the panel “weighed many factors,” and named six such factors; and singled out the circumstances that justified the sanctions, with a clear logical connection between the circumstances and the remedy. The Court therefore finds that the remedy was not “clearly unreasonable.”

The hostile environment claim also fails because Plaintiff does not plead the existence of a hostile environment after the remedy was issued. Mere “foreseeable risk of ongoing proximity” is insufficient to demonstrate a hostile environment. Plaintiff provides no support for the proposition that risk of proximity constitutes “severe or pervasive” “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.” Moreover, Plaintiff is not “vulnerable to” harassment simply because she is at risk of proximity, especially when the male student is subject to a no-contact order….

Jeffrey P. Metzler and Max A. Winograd (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP) represent defendant.