Doe v. Syracuse Univ.

• Decision Date: 21 February 2020
• Docket Number: 5:19-cv-00190 (BKS/ATB)
• Parties: John DOE, Plaintiff, v. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, Syracuse University Board of Trustees, Sheila Johnson-Willis, in her individual capacity, and Bernerd Jacobson, in his individual capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

440 F.Supp.3d 158

John DOE, Plaintiff,

v.SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, Syracuse University Board of Trustees, Sheila Johnson-Willis, in her individual capacity, and Bernerd Jacobson, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

5:19-cv-00190 (BKS/ATB)

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed February 21, 2020

For Plaintiff: Michael Thad Allen, Allen Law, LLC, P.O. Box 404, Quaker Hill, CT 06375, Julie E. Burt, Law Office of Julie E. Burt, 128 Garden Street, Farmington, CT 06032.

For Defendants: Edward G. Melvin, Barclay Damon LLP, Barclay Damon Tower, 125 East Jefferson Street, Syracuse, NY 13202.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John Doe brings this action alleging: (1) violations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("Title IX") (First, Second, and Third Claims); (2) breach of contract (Fourth Claim); (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Fifth Claim); (4) negligence (Sixth Claim); (5) gross negligence (Seventh Claim); and (6) violation of Art. I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution's Due Process Clause (Eighth Claim). (Dkt. No. 1). Defendants Syracuse University, the Syracuse University Board of Trustees (the "Syracuse Defendants"), Sheila Johnson-Willis, and Bernerd Jacobson (the "Individual Defendants") move to partially dismiss the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 20). The parties have filed responsive papers. (Dkt. Nos. 27, 28). For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. FACTS¹

A. The Encounters Between RP² and Plaintiff

Plaintiff and RP "met at church in their home state and, when they arrived in Syracuse for school in August 2016, "began spending time together on a regular basis," including by attending church together. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 21, 23–25). As their relationship evolved, "balancing their mutual attraction, their commitments to others, and their Christian values became increasingly conflicted." (Id. ¶ 26). Neither Plaintiff nor RP "had "extensive sexual experience." (Id. ). The two "disclosed ... that they were still virgins." (Id. ). Both "had resolved to remain abstinent until marriage and remained committed to that resolution." (Id. ).

Plaintiff and RP had three sexual encounters. (Id. ¶¶ 27–49). Each encounter "developed in the same pattern" in which RP demonstrated her "affirmative consent at every stage." (Id. ¶ 32).

1. October 11, 2016 – First Sexual Encounter

On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff called RP to ask if she wanted to "hang out." (Id. ¶ 27). RP "said she would like to get together," and "later divulged that her current boyfriend had broken up with her." (Id. ). The two had dinner. (Id. ). After dinner, RP "continued to seek support from Plaintiff and asked to go to his apartment where she continued to talk." (Id. ¶ 28).

As they sat on the couch, the two "had their arms around each other and eventually began to kiss." (Id. ). The encounter progressed to "mutual fondling," and the two "agreed to move into [Plaintiff's] bedroom." (Id. ¶ 29). They then "mutually agreed to remove each other's clothing as evidenced by their simultaneous actions and desires." (Id. ). Plaintiff "picked [RP] up and carried her, and [RP] demonstrated her active participation by wrapping her legs around [Plaintiff's] waist." (Id. ). "RP was an active, willing, and assertive participant" in the sexual encounter. (Id. ). The two "attempted vaginal intercourse but without success." (Id. ).

After the encounter, Plaintiff "felt conflicted, and RP stated she still had feelings for her recent ex-boyfriend." (Id. ¶ 30). The two "also discussed how they both believed their encounter had violated their Christian values." (Id. ). Plaintiff regretted being in a relationship with another woman. (Id. ¶ 31). Plaintiff felt "such emotional anguish" that RP "offered to take him to the hospital," but he "refused this assistance."

(Id. ). That night, Plaintiff "sought professional support independent of RP." (Id. ).

2. October 24, 2016 – Second Sexual Encounter

During the two weeks after their October 11th encounter, Plaintiff and RP "continued to struggle with feelings of guilt." (Id. ¶ 33). Plaintiff "experienced emotional trauma over cheating on his ... girlfriend by ‘hooking up’ with RP." (Id. ¶ 198). Plaintiff told his girlfriend, and his relationship with his girlfriend "ended as a result of the confession." (Id. ¶ 33). Plaintiff "continued to independently seek emotional support during this time from a Christian Counselor." (Id. ). Plaintiff and RP "continued to have feelings for each other." (Id. ¶ 34). On multiple occasions, they discussed whether they should "avoid ‘hanging out’ to ward off the temptation of another sexual encounter." (Id. ). "By the weekend of October 22/23, 2016," the two "discussed the effect of their behavior on their relationship and expressed that they would each seek forgiveness as they were taught by their Christian upbringing and values." (Id. ).

On October 24th, they originally planned to meet at a coffee shop, "but instead, RP voluntarily drove to [Plaintiff's] apartment around 5:00 p.m." and went inside. (Id. ¶ 35). Plaintiff discussed his "feelings about his break up and about his Christian values." (Id. ). The two agreed to stay at Plaintiff's apartment to talk, and "soon they both began to be intimate, which again evolved into a sexual encounter." (Id. ¶ 36). They began to kiss and "agreed through their actions and words to move to [Plaintiff's] bedroom." (Id. ). RP actively wrapped her legs and arms around [Plaintiff]" when he picked her up. (Id. ). The two "continued various sexual behaviors that they both enjoyed and desired to continue." (Id. ). The two "attempted vaginal intercourse" "but again without success." (Id. ). RP "gave affirmative consent to each specific sexual act." (Id. ¶ 38).

After the October 24th encounter, Plaintiff and RP "once again felt conflicted by their Christian values and their sexual desire." (Id. ¶ 41). The two "discussed RP's unstable and unpredictable relationship with another man, which increased her feelings of her wrongdoings during their sexual encounters." (Id. ). "They discussed their need to avoid temptation and follow their Christian values, so they decided that it would be best if they stayed away from each other." (Id. ). That evening, Plaintiff "again felt remorse for their behavior and again sought support" from a professional counselor." (Id. ).

3. November 13, 2016 – Third Sexual Encounter

On November 13th, Plaintiff went to church in Syracuse and saw RP there. (Id. ¶ 43). RP "stated she had no money for lunch, and so [Plaintiff] invited her to have lunch at his apartment after church." (Id. ). RP responded "that she would like to." (Id. ). RP "later gave contradictory accounts," denying "wanting to come to [Plaintiff's] apartment even though she voluntarily drove her own car." (Id. ). Once inside Plaintiff's apartment, "they began to kiss on [Plaintiff's] couch." (Id. ¶ 44). Throughout this time, "RP was an active and willing participant, and both parties mutually participated in the sexual behavior." (Id. ).

As during the prior encounters, Plaintiff and RP "moved to his bedroom." (Id. ). "RP again actively wrapped her legs around [Plaintiff] as he carried her to the bedroom." (Id. ). They "removed each other's clothing and progressed to mutual fondling." (Id. ). Plaintiff was "attentive to RP's desires and cues." (Id. ) Plaintiff, being "conscious of RP's feelings and desires, asked RP if she wanted to stop ‘making out.’ " (Id. ). "RP said yes, so [Plaintiff] immediately stopped his actions." (Id. ).

RP remained next to Plaintiff and began "flirtatiously teasing him and touching him." (Id. ¶ 45). Plaintiff "responded to her and kissed her, and [RP] responded by kissing him back and fully and actively participat[ing] in the physical contact." (Id. ). Plaintiff was "cognizant they were acting on mutual desires that they may both later regret." (Id. ). RP said, "not to worry about it" and that it "didn't bother" her that "they were in a similar situation as their other two encounters." (Id. ). After RP made those statements, Plaintiff asked "if they could ‘make out’ again, and RP ... consented to kissing again." (Id. ¶ 46). As during the prior two occasions, the encounter progressed beyond making out. (Id. ). The two "began undressing each other." (Id. ). Plaintiff asked if he and RP "could again attempt vaginal sex." (Id. ¶ 47). RP "consented, agreed, and continued to engage in the sexual behavior." (Id. ). On this occasion, "the two successfully completed vaginal intercourse." (Id. ). "All sexual acts" followed the "exact same pattern of voluntary, mutually consensual sex as in their prior encounters." (Id. ¶ 48).

Afterwards, Plaintiff and RP "talked about feeling remorse about their mutual desires, completing the sexual act, and conflict with their faith." (Id. ¶ 49). Both RP and Plaintiff "believed they had failed to contain sinful urges outside of marriage." (Id. ¶ 198). RP told Plaintiff that "she was conflicted due to her attempt to commit again to her other boyfriend." (Id. ¶ 49). She also told Plaintiff that "she was upset that she may not be a virgin anymore and expressed confusion about this point." (Id. ). The two "agreed not to see each other to avoid temptation," and then "turned to small talk." (Id. ).

B. RP Reports That Plaintiff Sexually Assaulted Her

Two days later, RP "discussed her sexual encounters with a Syracuse professor." (Id. ¶ 101). The professor "encouraged RP to rethink the consensual events of November 13, 2016 as non-consensual." (Id. ). Syracuse did not investigate what the professor said or how RP's account to the professor differed from her other accounts of the events. (Id. ¶ 102). Plaintiff "was not provided the opportunity to find out what the professor said." (Id. ). Plaintiff could not determine whether or not RP's statements to the professor were...