Doe v. Haas
| Decision Date | 09 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-0014 (DRH)(AKT) |
| Citation | 427 F.Supp.3d 336 |
| Parties | John DOE, Plaintiff, v. Tracy HAAS, Suzanne Shane, and the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
For Plaintiff: Gomberg Legal, P.C., 1001 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1222, New York, New York, 12222, By: Stanislav Gomberg, Esq.
For Defendants: Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, 300 Motor Parkway, Suite 320, Hauppauge, New York 11788, By: Susan M. Connolly, Assist. Attorney General.
Plaintiff, John Doe ("Plaintiff" or "Doe")1 commenced this action against Tracy Haas ("Haas"), Suzanne Shane ("Shane") and the State University of New York at Stony Brook ("SBU") (collectively "Defendants") asserting claims for due process violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for sex and gender discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("Title IX") in connection with an administrative disciplinary proceeding brought against him pursuant to SBU's Code of Student Responsibility (the "Code").2 Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The following allegations are taken from the Amended Complaint ("AC" or "Complaint") and presumed true for purposes of this motion.
During his first year at SBU Plaintiff rejected several romantic advances by BG, a female classmate. However, "one late night, on March 5, 2018, when Plaintiff was highly intoxicated," and incapable of giving consent, "BG invited herself to Plaintiff's dorm room and initiated sexual intercourse."
The next day, "BG messaged Plaintiff about the sexual episode and quickly grew frustrated." Although she admitted that "the sexual episode began and ended on terms she consented with, she accused Plaintiff in a text of attempting non-consensual anal intercourse" while the two were in the "doggy style" position. After indicating that he neither remembered nor believed this incident occurred, Plaintiff stopped responding. BG then threatened "[i]f you don't respond I'm going to report you." In response, Plaintiff reminded her he was highly intoxicated the prior night and that he was unaware of such an incident. BG proceeded to tell Plaintiff he was "bad in bed," after which Plaintiff no longer responded to BG. (AC ¶ 3-4; 24-53.)
Five days later, BG filed a complaint against Plaintiff with SBU alleging non-consensual intercourse. Plaintiff filed a cross-complaint based on his own inability to consent to intercourse on account of his "considerable intoxication." At about the same time, BG published a public post on social media "with Plaintiff's name, image, and a caption describing Plaintiff as her ‘rapist’ and inciting others to ‘beat [Plaintiff] up", a violation of SBU's Code. (AC ¶¶ 5-6, 54-61 (brackets in original).)
On July 31, 2018 Plaintiff received the Notice of Charges and Notice of Review Panel Hearing ("Notice of Hearing") scheduled for August 10, 2018. The Notice of Charges identified the charges for both BG and Plaintiff as sections VII(C)(5)(b) (nonconsensual sexual contact) and VII(C)(5)(c) (nonconsensual sexual intercourse) of the Code. (AC ¶¶ 63-64.)
The Code sets forth both rules of student conduct and an administrative process to be followed when a violation of its provisions has been alleged. Section VII of the Code sets forth the policy and procedure for Sexual Misconduct. It contains a listing of the behaviors that constitute sexual misconduct. (Code at § VII(C)(5).)
The Code contain both pre-hearing and hearing procedures. The University is required to "conduct a timely review of all complaints of sexual misconduct," the review and resolution of which, absent extenuating circumstances, is expected to take place within sixty (60) days of receipt of the complaint. (Code at § VII(D)(1).) Investigations are to be conducted by a University Investigator and include interviews with the parties and witnesses. When the investigation is complete, a report is prepared, which report both complaint and respondent are "permitted to review prior to the hearing." (Id. at § VII(D)(4). Parties are permitted to have an advisor, who may be an attorney, but advisors are not permitted to make presentations or arguments at the hearing. The Notice of Hearing informed Plaintiff of these rules and he retained an attorney as his advisor. The notice included instructions for submission of evidence pre-hearing. (AC ¶¶65-68.) According to those instructions, information in support or defense of the allegations that will be presented at the hearing must be provided by both complainant and respondent to the Office of University Community Standards five (5) days in advance of the scheduled hearing. If information has not been so provided the official presiding at the Review Panel may exclude it or adjourn the hearing; the presiding official makes the final decision relating to the admissibility of all information. "Written statements [concerning] the allegations may be considered[, but] [f]irst hand oral testimony will be given greater weight than hearsay testimony." All written information that will be presented at the hearing is made available to the parties 48 hours prior to the hearing. (Code at § VII(D)(4).)
The Code provides that parties Each party may ask questions regarding the investigation summary or report and question any non-party witnesses present. (Code at § VII(D)(7).) After the Hearing Officer reads or summarizes the investigation report, the complainant may begin with an opening statement and present all information in support of the allegations. The respondent, then the Review Panel may question the complainant. Respondent then makes an opening statement and presents all information in defense of the allegations. The complainant, then the Review Panel members may question the respondent. The hearing officer then introduces witnesses and asks for their statement. Witnesses are then questioned by the complainant, then the respondent, then the Review Panel. Only written statements from character witnesses are permitted. After all witnesses and questioning is concluded, the respondent then the complainant give a closing statement. No questioning is allowed during or after closing statements. (Id. )
On August 2, 2018, the Doe's advisor alerted Shane, "the associate managing counsel" for SBU, that the procedures set forth in the Notice of Hearing were not in conformity with SBU's then operative code for Title IX Hearings (the "2018 Code"). Whereas the 2018 Code allowed for a respondent to access SBU's Title IX Investigator's Report five (5) days prior to the hearing and to submit rebuttal evidence within two days of the hearing, the rules in the Notice of Hearings stated that the Investigative Report would be available to the parties only (2) days prior to the Hearing and that all evidence must be submitted at least five days before the hearing with no opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence after reviewing the Investigative Report. Shane refused to follow the 2018 Code, instead "arbitrarily choosing to follow the prior year's procedures that were no longer in effect." This result in Plaintiff's inability to present certain text messages as rebuttal evidence. (AC ¶¶ 16, 69-71.)
A one-day hearing was held on August 10, 2018, almost five months after the initial filing of the charges. After introducing all the parties, Haas, the "Title IX Review Panel Hearing Officer" who was tasked with running the proceedings, advised that if either party or their advisor engaged in any communication toward the other party, they would be removed from the hearing room, with the hearing continuing in their absence, and informed Plaintiff's advisor that he could not engage in any verbal presentation or questioning. Haas then introduced the three-member Review Panel, whose role was comparable to a jury, and consisted of SBU faculty and staff. Shane was also present "within the hearing room" during the hearing. (AC ¶¶ 16,72-76.)
The first witness was SBU's Title IX Investigator who gave a summary of her report and answered questions. BG then made her opening statement "in which she largely compared Plaintiff's behavior to that of notorious felons." Plaintiff then gave his opening statement "expressing that he had no recollection of the alleged non-consensual anal penetration and that he would not have consented to the sexual episode at all if he were sober." The parties were then permitted to submit to Haas the questions they wanted asked of the opposing party. The parties were not permitted to directly cross-examine one another. Haas "refused or failed to pose numerous questions to BG" that Plaintiff requested, "ostensibly on the basis or ‘relevance’ and ‘appropriateness.’ " Examples of the questions submitted by Plaintiff that Haas did not ask include:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Univ. of N.M.
...not established he had a clearly established right to a standard greater than preponderance-of-the-evidence); Doe v. Haas, 427 F. Supp. 3d 336, 350 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (Hurley, J.)(holding that, where a university suspended a student and placed a permanent mark on his transcript denoting a sexu......
-
John Doe v. Univ. of Neb.
...because the law was not clearly established at the time of their actions. See, e.g., Doe v. Haas , No. 19CV0014DRHAKT. 427 F.Supp.3d 336, 351–54 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) ("[W]hile the courts have recognized that when credibility is at issue the accused should be provided ‘some form’ of cross......
-
Sibley v. Watches
...relief for due process violations stemming from a retirement benefits hearing did not fall within Ex Parte Young ); Doe v. Haas , 427 F. Supp. 3d 336, 347-48 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (finding that student's discrimination complaint arising from a disciplinary hearing only sought retroactive relief w......
-
Juneau Wang v. Bethlehem Cent. Sch. Dist.
...the outcome of the disciplinary process,” and (2) “particular circumstances suggesting that gender bias was a motivating factor.” Haas, 427 F.Supp.3d at 354 Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 715). 1. Articulable Doubt The pleading burden to satisfy the articulable doubt requirement has been described by th......