Collick v. William Paterson Univ.

• Decision Date: 17 November 2016
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 16-471 (KM) (JBC)
• Parties: GARRETT COLLICK, NOAH WILLIAMS, and NANCY WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY, KATHLEEN M. WALDRON, ROBERT FULLEMAN, ELLEN DESIMONE, WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN DOES 1-20 (names fictitious as presently unknown), employees, representatives, and/or agents of defendant WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, JANE DOES 1-20 (names fictitious as presently unknown), employees, representatives, and/or agents of defendant WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN SMITH 1-5 (names fictitious as presently unknown), employees, representatives, agents, and/or spokespersons of defendant WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY, and JANE SMITH 1-5 (names fictitious as presently unknown), employees, representatives, agents, and/or spokespersons of defendant WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

GARRETT COLLICK, NOAH WILLIAMS, and NANCY WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY, KATHLEEN M. WALDRON,ROBERT FULLEMAN, ELLEN DESIMONE,WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,JOHN DOES 1-20 (names fictitious as presently unknown),employees, representatives, and/or agents of defendantWILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, JANE DOES 1-20 (names fictitious aspresently unknown), employees, representatives,and/or agents of defendant WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHN SMITH1-5 (names fictitious as presently unknown), employees, representatives, agents,and/or spokespersons of defendant WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY,and JANE SMITH 1-5 (names fictitious as presently unknown), employees,representatives, agents, and/or spokespersons of defendant WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY, Defendants.

Civ. No. 16-471 (KM) (JBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

November 17, 2016

OPINION

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

The manner in which colleges address allegations of sexual assault on campus is an issue of great public concern. Now before this Court, however, is a motion like any other—in particular, a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF no. 14) It is not the Court's task on this motion to determine whose account is more credible. Indeed, the opposite: for purposes of such a motion, "[t]he only issue before the Court now is whether the Complaint, if we assume its allegations are true, states a legal claim. Whether the allegations are true can be determined only after the parties exchange discovery and the case is decided, either by summary judgment or trial."¹

The campus in question here is that of William Paterson University ("WPU"). The primary plaintiffs, Garrett Collick ("Collick") and Noah Williams ("Williams"), are two male WPU students who were accused of having engaged in non-consensual sex with a female classmate. Collick and Williams were arrested by university police officers and charged with sexual assault and other crimes. A grand jury declined to indict them. WPU, however, ultimately expelled them. The claims in the Complaint (ECF nos. 1-1 and 1-2)² arise from those criminal and university disciplinary processes.

Collick, Williams, and Collick's mother, Nancy Williams ("Ms. Williams"), bring this suit against WPU; the WPU Police Department ("University Police"); WPU's President, Kathleen M. Waldron; its Director of Public Safety and University Police, Robert Fulleman ("Director Fulleman"); and a University Police Detective Sergeant, Ellen DeSimone ("Det. Sgt. DeSimone"). Also namedas defendants are some two dozen other employees, representatives, or agents of WPU's administration and the University Police.

The Complaint asserts some twenty-one causes of action. Collick, Williams, and Ms. Williams allege that the WPU Defendants have violated their rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("Title IX"), the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 ("Section 1985"), 42 U.S.C. § 1986 ("Section 1986"), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and the New Jersey Constitution and laws. They also assert multiple common law tort and contract based causes of action.

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I dismiss without prejudice certain defectively pleaded claims, or parts of claims: Counts 11 and 17 are dismissed in their entirety; Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are dismissed in part to the extent they are based on racial discrimination or theories of substantive due process or equal protection/racial discrimination; Count 10 is dismissed as to the respondeat superior liability of WPU and the University Police only; and Count 12 is dismissed as to Plaintiffs' relationship with WPU only. The remainder of the Complaint will go forward.

I. BACKGROUND

In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court is required to treat the facts alleged in the Complaint as true and to draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. I summarize those allegations as follows:

A. The Matriculation of Collick and Williams at WPU

WPU is a public, coeducational college located in Wayne, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 28) In late November 2014, Collick and Williams, both male, were 18-year-old freshmen at WPU, in good academic and financial standing. (Id. ¶ 1) Both Collick and Williams enrolled at WPU as members of the Educational Opportunity Fund Program ("EOFP"), "a program instituted to offer students from disadvantaged backgrounds the tools and financial support needed tosucceed in college." (Id. ¶ 35) EOFP-related loans of $11,000 and $4,000, respectively, enabled Collick and Williams to attend WPU. (Id. ¶¶ 50, 60) Collick also worked at WPU's dining hall, earning approximately $8.35 per hour. (Id. ¶ 53)

B. Student Code of Conduct and Sexual Violence Policy

As WPU students, Collick and Williams were subject to WPU's Student Code of Conduct 2014-2015 ("Student Code of Conduct") and the Domestic/Dating Violence, Stalking and Sexual Violence Policy ("Sexual Violence Policy"). (Id. ¶36) These documents govern WPU's investigations and disciplinary proceedings. (Id. ¶ 47)

The Sexual Violence Policy provides that "Students accused of . . . sexual violence: will be treated with fairness and respect. The University will ensure that its investigations and disciplinary proceedings comply with due process requirements." (Id. ¶ 39) This policy also establishes the process WPU must use when investigating and prosecuting claims of misconduct:

Disciplinary sanctions for violations of this . . . sexual violence policy and/or of the student code of conduct will be imposed in accordance with applicable [WPU] policies, including but not limited to, expulsion or termination of employment. The University's determination shall be based on the preponderance of evidence in the case. [WPU] typically conducts a full investigation within sixty days of receiving a complaint. Additional time may be necessary depending of the complexity of the investigation and the severity and extent of . . . sexual violence. Both parties will be simultaneously provided with written notification of the outcome of the investigation/proceeding and, if applicable, either party may file an appeal within three days. Both parties will be given periodic status updates on the investigation. The appropriate University disciplinary process is determined by the status of the person accused of engaging in . . . sexual violence. If the accused is a student, the complaint is addressed with the procedures for student discipline as set forth in the University's Student Code of Conduct.

(Id. ¶ 40) Similarly, the Student Code of Conduct establishes that:

[T]he threshold utilized for determining responsibility for alleged policy violations will be the "preponderance of the evidence." This means that the hearing officer will weigh all information availableabout an incident and ask if the violation is more likely than not to have occurred. If the answer is affirmative, then the student(s) will be found responsible for the violation.

(Id. ¶ 41) The Student Code of Conduct also assures WPU students that "[t]he University will guarantee procedural fairness in all its disciplinary actions." (Id. ¶ 42)

C. Encounters Between Collick and Williams and Jane Doe

During their freshman year, Collick lived in WPU's Overlook North dormitory, and Williams lived in the Overlook South dormitory. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27) "Jane Doe,"³ a female first-year student, also lived in Overlook South. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 52) Both Collick and Williams first met Jane Doe during their first semester at WPU, and both had participated in consensual sexual activity with Doe before the night of November 25, 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 54-55, 62-63) Jane Doe had initiated the sexual relationships with both Collick and Williams, and some of the consensual sexual activities in both relationships had involved other male WPU students as well. On at least one occasion prior to November 25, 2014, Collick, Williams, and Jane Doe jointly participated in sexual activity. (Id. ¶¶ 56-58, 64-66) Between such sexual episodes, Jane Doe "inundated" Collick with messages, via text message and otherwise, seeking sex. Most of these Collick rejected. (Id. ¶ 59)

On November 24, 2015, Jane Doe hoped to engage sexually with Collick and, for that purpose, attempted to call him thirty-three times. (Id. ¶¶ 68-69) Later that evening and into the early morning of November 25, 2014, Collick and Williams were watching television with three other male WPU students in a friend's room in the Overlook South dormitory. (Id. ¶ 67) While those five were watching TV, Jane Doe entered, turned off the lights and TV, closed the blinds, and invited Collick to have sex with her in her room, but he declined. (Id. ¶¶ 70-72) Jane Doe then "initiated consensual sex on Collick," and subsequently participated in consensual sexual activities with Williams and the other threemale students. (Id. ¶¶ 73-74) Afterward, Williams and another male student accepted—but Collick declined—an invitation from Doe to come back to her room, where Williams then had additional consensual sex with Doe. (Id. ¶¶ 75-77) Williams then returned to his room. (Id. ¶ 78) Afterward, Jane Doe, Collick and Williams, and the three other first-year students remained on good terms. (Id. ¶ 4) Later on November 25, 2014, Jane Doe "visited Williams' dormitory and other nearby rooms looking for Collick who was not there." (Id. ¶ 79)

D. Defendants' Investigation of Allegations by Doe

University Police is a police organization "responsible for servicing and protecting William Paterson's campus and its community." (Id. ¶ 29) Director Fulleman was "responsible for implementing, overseeing, and supervising all laws and safety procedures" at WPU, and...