Hack v. President and Fellows of Yale College, CIV. 3:97CV02212 (AVC).

• Decision Date: 31 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. CIV. 3:97CV02212 (AVC).,CIV. 3:97CV02212 (AVC).
• Citation: 16 F.Supp.2d 183
• Parties: Elisha D. HACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF YALE COLLEGE d/b/a Yale Corporation and Yale University, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

16 F.Supp.2d 183

Elisha D. HACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF YALE COLLEGE d/b/a Yale Corporation and Yale University, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV. 3:97CV02212 (AVC).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

July 31, 1998.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William F. Gallagher, Barbara L. Cox, Gallagher, Gallagher & Calistro, New Haven, CT, Nathan Lewin, Richard W. Garnett, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, DC, for Elisha D. Hack, Jeremy A. Hershman, Batsheva Greer, Lisa B. Friedman, plaintiffs.

James Sicilian, Felix J. Springer, William D. Thompson, Jr., Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, CT, for Yale College, President & Fellows dba Yale Corp, Yale University, Richard H. Brodhead, Betty Trachtenberg, defendants.

RULING ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

COVELLO, Chief Judge.

This is an action for damages and injunctive relief in which the plaintiffs, who are freshmen and sophomores at Yale College, claim that the defendants have discriminatorily denied them permission to reside off campus. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that: 1) the defendants violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by interfering with their free exercise of religion; the plaintiffs claim relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 2) the defendants violated the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604; 3) the defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2; and 4) the defendants are liable under common law tenets concerning breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The defendants have now filed the within motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the ground that the complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The issues presented are: 1) whether the implementation of Yale's housing policy constitutes action under color of state law; 2) whether Yale's housing policy decision to deny the plaintiffs' request to live off campus constitutes a violation the federal Fair Housing Act; 3) whether Yale's housing policy constitutes an illegal tying arrangement under the Sherman Antitrust Act; 4) whether Yale's housing policy constitutes a monopoly power in a relevant market under the Sherman Antitrust Act; 5) whether the implementation of Yale's housing policy constitutes a breach of contract due to Yale's alleged failure to accommodate the plaintiffs' bona fide religious convictions; and 6) whether the implementation of Yale's housing policy constitutes unjust enrichment.

For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the court concludes that: 1) the administrators of Yale College did not act under color of state law when they denied the plaintiffs' request to reside off campus; 2) the plaintiffs lack standing to claim a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act; 3) the amended complaint has not sufficiently alleged that Yale has the requisite market power in the tying market to state a claim of an illegal tying arrangement; 4) the amended complaint has not sufficiently alleged a relevant market necessary to state a claim of an illegal monopoly; and 5) the court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss (document no. 11) is hereby GRANTED.

FACTS

The amended complaint alleges the following. The plaintiffs, Elisha D. Hack, Jeremy A. Hershman, Batsheva Greer, and Lisa B. Friedman, are freshman and sophomore students at Yale College. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants, The President and Fellows of Yale College d/b/a Yale Corporation and Yale University, Richard H. Brodhead, and Betty Trachtenberg (hereinafter "Yale"), discriminated against them because of their religion when the defendants denied the plaintiffs' request to reside off campus.

The residence halls at Yale College are coeducational and the college does not operate single-sex residence halls. Yale's "Dormitory Regulations" provide that "[a]ll freshmen and sophomores are required to live on campus, except freshmen who are married or who are over twenty-one years of age." A freshman or sophomore who is married or twenty-one years or older may request an exemption from the on campus requirement. Students who are accepted to and enroll in the undergraduate degree program at Yale College must comply with the housing policy.

At the time the plaintiffs filed the amended complaint, each of them was younger than twenty-one years of age and not married. The plaintiffs are Orthodox Jews "whose religious beliefs and obligations regarding sexual modesty forbid them to reside in the coeducational housing provided and mandated by Yale."

In April 1995, admissions officials admitted Friedman to Yale College. She deferred enrollment until the Fall of 1996. In April 1996, she wrote a letter to Yale requesting an exemption from the housing requirement based on her religious beliefs and obligations. Yale denied her request.¹ In April 1995, admissions officials admitted Hershman to Yale College. He deferred enrollment until the Fall of 1996. On March 18, 1996 he requested an exemption from Yale's dormitory regulations based on his religious beliefs and obligations. In April 1995, admissions officials admitted Hack to Yale College. He deferred enrollment for two years until the Fall of 1997. On May 9, 1997, Hack requested an exemption from the housing requirement based on his religious beliefs and obligations. Finally, in April 1996, admissions officials admitted Greer to Yale College, but she deferred enrollment until the Fall of 1997. She requested an exemption from Yale's housing policy based on her religious beliefs and obligations. Yale denied all of the plaintiffs' exemption requests and required them to live on campus in the coeducational residence halls.

Yale charged the plaintiffs for the residence hall fee, which the plaintiffs paid. The residence hall rooms remain vacant for the plaintiffs' return. All of the plaintiffs have elected, however, to reside off campus in housing "that provides ... an appropriate environment in which to practice [their] faith."

STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) involves a determination as to whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fischman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 755 F.Supp. 528 (D.Conn.1990). The motion must be decided solely on the facts alleged. Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1065 (2d Cir.1985). A court must assume all factual allegations in the complaint to be true and must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Such a motion should be granted only when no set of facts consistent with the allegations could be proven which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The issue is not whether the plaintiff will prevail, but whether he should have the opportunity to prove his claims. Id.

DISCUSSION

I. § 1983 Claims

Yale argues that the "first four counts [in the amended complaint] ... all fail to state a claim because Yale is not an entity acting `under color of state law' for purposes of [42 U.S.C.] § 1983." Specifically, Yale argues that it is not a state actor and that its conduct cannot be deemed state action.

The plaintiffs first respond that a determination of whether Yale is a state actor or whether Yale's conduct can be fairly attributed to the State of Connecticut "will require careful analysis of the particular facts in this case." Moreover, the plaintiffs contend that "these claims should not be dismissed before the plaintiffs have had an opportunity to engage in the discovery to which they are entitled and to introduce supporting evidence."

Second, "the plaintiffs initial `state action' theory is that Yale will, after discovery and a presentation of the evidence, be shown to be a `Government entity' under Lebron."

Third, the plaintiffs respond that the state action inquiry is fact based and that "[t]here is no `unitary test' [to] determin[e]" whether conduct should be attributed to the state. The plaintiffs argue that "the facts of each case [should] determine the test."

Section 1983 provides that no person acting "under color of any statute ... of any State" shall deprive another of any right privilege or immunity "secured by the Constitution and the laws" of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff may bring a claim "under § 1983 only if the defendant acted `under color' of state law." Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 835, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982). An entity can be deemed to have acted `under color' of state law either under the state actor analysis or the state action analysis.

A. State Actor

Yale first argues that it is not a state actor for § 1983 purposes. Yale, relying on Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 115 S.Ct. 961, 130 L.Ed.2d 902(1995), posits that the amended complaint has failed to satisfy the third prong of a three-pronged analytical test, which determines whether an entity is a state actor. Specifically, Yale contends that "the plaintiffs have not alleged ... that the State of Connecticut has retained permanent authority to appoint a majority of the members of the Yale Corporation or any governing body at Yale University."

The plaintiffs respond that "Yale asks this Court to extract from Lebron's fact-intensive inquiry a `three-pronged' formula that would limit Lebron's reasoning to the particular facts of that case." The plaintiffs assert that "[t]he Court in Lebron did not hold that state-action analysis hinges on the number of directors who are public officials or who are appointed by public officials." The plaintiffs further respond that "the [first] two factors relied on in Lebron are indisputably present in this case...."

In Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S....