The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted some relief to a female graduate assistant at Hofstra University, whose claim of sexual harassment, retaliation and Title IX violations was dismissed by a district court.
While allowing the lower court’s decision to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for retaliation to stand, the panel found that the court “erred” in its conclusions on the other claims.
In the summer of 2006, plaintiff Lauren Summa began dating a member of the Hofstra football team. She ultimately applied for, and was selected to be, team manager. That fall, players on the team began making lewd comments to her, initially when she traveled on bus rides with the team to away games. Essentially, lewd comments were made to her by players on the team. The comments, allegedly, escalated, leading the plaintiff to speak with defendants Melissa Connolly, the vice president of the Office of University Relations at Hofstra, David Cohen, the head coach for the Hofstra football team. Cohen ultimately cut one of the players, whose comment led the plaintiff to file an official complaint.
The controversy might have ended there, had the university not bypassed Summa in its search for a manager for spring football. This, alleged the plaintiff, was a retaliatory act. She initially filed her complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. But within a year, the complaint was escalated to the federal courts.
Her claims included discrimination, harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§1681 et seq. (“Title IX”), and New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), and aiding and abetting violations of NYSHRL.
The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The plaintiff appealed.
The appeals court, for the most part, agreed with the district judge, finding that “the harassment conduct could not be imputed to the university.
“All of the alleged harassers were football players. Once the university knew about the harassing behavior, it met its obligation to address and end the harassment. Each complaint that was brought directly to the coach’s attention was dealt with quickly and in proportion to the level of seriousness of the event.”
It did disagree with the judge on some points, such as the judge’s conclusion “that the student could not have reasonably believed that her complaints to public safety and the university’s Equality Officer were complaints about violations of Title VII.”
The panel continued: “It was clear from the student’s formal EEO complaint that she believed that an event on the football team bus was employment related. Furthermore, this was an entirely reasonable belief because the student was not on the bus in her capacity as a graduate student, but rather was there solely in her capacity as an employee of the Athletics Department.
“The district court also erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence of causation with respect to the student’s loss of her football manager position and the termination of all of her employment privileges.”
Lauren E. Summa v. Hofstra University, David Cohen, and Melissa Connolly; 2d Cir.; Docket No. 11-1743, 708 F.3d 115; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3677; 117 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 676; 2/21/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Douglas Holden Wigdor, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thompson, Wigdor & Gilly LLP, New York, NY. (for defendants) Domenique Camacho Moran, LEAD ATTORNEY, Michael Alan-Herman Schoenberg, Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, NY.
