Roe v. Ne. Univ.

Decision Date08 March 2019
Docket NumberDocket: 16-03335-C
PartiesMORGAN ROE PLAINTIFF v. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, KATHERINE ANTONUCCI, ROBERT JOSE, BRIANA R. SEVIGNY, MARY WEGMANN & MADELEINE ESTABROOK DEFENDANTS
CourtMassachusetts Superior Court
Dates: March 8, 2019

Present: Robert B. Gordon

County: SUFFOLK, ss

Keywords: .

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Morgan Roe (the "Plaintiff")1 alleges that, while she was a student at Northeastern University ("NU" or the "University"), she was sexually assaulted by another student in that student’s dormitory room. Plaintiff brings against action against NU and several of its employees, Katherine Antonucci, Robert Jose, Briana R. Sevigny, Mary Wegmann, and Madeleine Estabrook (collectively, the "Defendants"), alleging that they failed to protect her against the assault and inadequately handled her ensuing complaint. Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (the "MERA") against all Defendants, as well as claims for breach of contract and violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. ("Title IX") against NU.2 Presented for decision is the DefendantsMotion for Summary Judgment. Following a hearing and for the reasons which follow, the Defendants’ motion shall be ALLOWED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the summary judgment record and the statement of undisputed material facts filed jointly by the parties under Superior Court Rule 9A(b)(5). The Court reserves further recitation of the facts for its discussion below.

I. The Parties

NU is a non-profit, charitable corporation that offers undergraduate and graduate education degrees. Plaintiff was a student at NU from the fall of 2013 until she graduated in December, 2017.

NU operates a Department of Residential Life (the "Department"), which employs and trains staff to supervise campus residential life. During the relevant time period, Defendant Jose was NU’s Associate Dean of Cultural, Residential and Spiritual Life, and the Director of NU’s Residence Life Office. Jose was tasked with general oversight of the Department, including the hiring, training and overseeing its staff, and with ensuring that NU campus policies were enforced. Jose had supervisory authority over Defendant Antonucci, who served as an Area Coordinator at NU. Antonucci was responsible for training and directly overseeing the work of certain resident assistants ("RAs").

NU operates a Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution ("OSCCR") program, which administers disciplinary proceedings against students alleged to have violated the University’s Code of Student Conduct (the "Code"). Defendant Estabrook was NU’s Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, and oversaw OSCCR. Defendant Wegmann was NU’s Director of OSCCR, and was charged with enforcing the Code and other University policies, as well as supervising, hiring and training Student Conduct Board and Appeals Board members. Defendant Sevigny was NU’s Assistant Director of OSCCR, and provided training to both Residential Life staff and members of the Student Conduct Board.

II. Relevant NU Policies
A. The Code

At all relevant times, the Code prohibited underage students from drinking or possessing alcohol on campus, including in residence halls, and prohibited all students from furnishing alcohol to underage students. Underage students were prohibited from even being in the presence of alcohol, unless such alcohol was in the possession of a roommate who was age 21 or older. The Code further prohibited excessive alcohol consumption and sexual assault. Students who violated the Code could be subject to discipline by NU.

B. NU’s Security and Supervision of Residence Halls

NU engages certain students as RAs to serve as role models for the University’s undergraduate community. RAs are "paraprofessional" members of NU’s Residence Life Office. They are required to sign a "Resident Assistant Agreement," and receive financial compensation in the form of on-campus housing in exchange for their service. RAs are engaged, trained and supervised by NU staff.

NU requires its RAs to be familiar with the Code, to perform periodic rounds in their assigned buildings, to serve as resident hall proctors, to intervene if students violate community norms, to remain sober and drug-free while on duty, and to maintain high standards of personal conduct and integrity. RAs also are required to take corrective action and report any violation of the Code to their supervisors, even if the violation occurs when the RA is "off duty" or in a building to which the RA is not ordinarily assigned. The failure of an RA to intercede when students under 21 years old are drinking alcohol, to obtain assistance for students in need, and to report Code infractions are all violations of an RA’s duties under the Code. Such violations could serve as a basis to dismiss the RA from that role.

III. The Events of October 31, 2013

In the fall of 2013, Plaintiff was a freshman at NU. NU required that all freshman students live on campus. Plaintiff lived in International Village, one of the University’s residence halls. Another freshman student ("the assailant"), who was Plaintiff’s classmate and part of her student study group, also lived in International Village.3

On October 31, 2013, Plaintiff and the assailant were invited to attend a Halloween party hosted by a sophomore student, Stacey Anderson, in Anderson’s dorm room at 97 St. Stephen Street, a property leased by NU for student housing. Plaintiff, the assailant, Anderson, and Patrick Ward, another sophomore student attending the party, were classmates and had socialized on prior occasions. These four students, as well as all of the other attendees at the party, were under the age of 21.

That evening, Plaintiff and the assailant consumed alcohol in Plaintiff’s dorm room, and then made their way to the party at around 9:00 p.m. Once at the party, Plaintiff and the assailant consumed rum and Coke that they had brought with them in a Coca Cola bottle; and the assailant additionally provided Plaintiff with Fireball whiskey that he obtained from another party-goer (not Anderson or Ward). Plaintiff also played drinking games with some or all of the party participants.

Anderson was an RA on duty on the evening of the party. She left the party at times to attend to her rounds, but always returned to the room when she was finished. Ward was also an RA, but served in another dorm and was not on duty at the time of the party.

At some point during the evening, Plaintiff became very intoxicated and vomited several times in Anderson’s bathroom. Two female NU students who also were at the party stayed with Plaintiff in the bathroom to lend support to her. The two wanted to take Plaintiff back to her dorm room, but did not believe that the proctors who signed residents into the dormitory would allow Plaintiff to enter the building in her visibly intoxicated state, and might even seek to discipline them on account of Plaintiff’s condition. The assailant, who was also intoxicated, volunteered to take Plaintiff home, because they lived in the same dormitory and he needed to get up early for crew practice.

Despite their awareness that party attendees were under the age of 21, RAs Anderson and Ward observed many attendees drink alcohol to the point of intoxication, personally consumed alcohol themselves, and played drinking games with other party-goers. During the time that Plaintiff was at the party, neither Anderson nor Ward assisted Plaintiff by calling NU police to assess her condition, by offering her safe transport home (as was available pursuant to the University’s Medical Amnesty policy), or by volunteering to escort Plaintiff back to her dorm room.

Plaintiff and the assailant departed the party at around 11:20 p.m., and Plaintiff texted her roommate to let her know that she was on her way home. Plaintiff relied on the assailant for support as the two walked and, at one point, Plaintiff stumbled and fell, causing the assailant to fall himself. At some point during the walk, the assailant took the Plaintiff’s cell phone and identification from her. The two students also kissed during the course of the walk. When they arrived at their dormitory, Plaintiff leaned on the proctor’s desk as the proctor checked her and the assailant’s identification. Plaintiff was unsteady on her feet as she left the proctor’s desk and approached the elevators in the dorm.

The assailant then told Plaintiff that he needed to get something from his room, and invited Plaintiff to come with him while he retrieved the item. Plaintiff agreed, and accompanied the assailant to his room. Once inside the room, the assailant kissed Plaintiff, and the two eventually ended up undressed in the assailant’s bed. The assailant then initiated sexual relations with Plaintiff. Plaintiff said "ouch" several times, and further informed the assailant that she was a virgin. The assailant then told Plaintiff that he would get a condom. Plaintiff did not respond or say that she did not want to have sex, but recalls today that she was very uncomfortable at the time. The assailant also guided Plaintiff’s head down to his groin in an attempt to prompt her to perform oral sex on him, but told her she could stop when she said, "I have never done this before." At certain points during the encounter, Plaintiff rolled over and pulled the blanket up over her head; and, at least at one other point, Plaintiff vomited in the assailant’s bathroom. Plaintiff was afraid to leave the dorm room, because she thought that the assailant would not let her do so or that he might hurt her. Ultimately, the assailant and Plaintiff had oral, anal, and vaginal sex over the course of several hours.

When Plaintiff returned to her own dorm room the next morning, she cried and confided to her...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT