Glaser v. Upright Citizens Brigade LLC

Background

Aaron Glaser, a stand-up comedian, sued Upright Citizens Brigade LLC, affiliated comedy theaters and training entities, and associated individuals. He alleged violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as well as state and city law, based on defendants’ decision to terminate his monthly stand-up show and ban him from their New York and California premises and classes.

The defendants operate comedy theaters and a training center offering improvisation and sketch-comedy courses. The training center is accredited as a non-degree-granting institution. Glaser completed core improvisation and sketch-comedy classes by 2010. Beginning around 2013, he produced and hosted a monthly stand-up series at one of the defendants’ New York theaters. In August 2016, defendants told him that multiple rape allegations had been made against him, terminated his show, and banned him from their premises. Glaser alleged that the allegations were baseless and that the ban and related publicity seriously harmed his professional and personal life.

The court had previously dismissed Glaser’s federal claims and allowed him to replead. The defendants then moved to dismiss his Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Title IX claim

Title IX bars sex discrimination in an education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The court explained that, under the governing statute, Title IX applies on a program-by-program basis when the relevant program is educational. The parties agreed that the training center’s coursework was an educational program, but the court held that this did not make all of the defendants’ activities educational programs.

The court relied on its earlier ruling that Glaser could not base a Title IX claim on his former student status because he had finished his classes years before the alleged discrimination. The court also rejected Glaser’s argument that he was a prospective student in the advanced program. He had not alleged that he applied or intended to apply to those courses, so the court concluded that he lacked a concrete or imminent injury from being prevented from participating in them.

The court separately considered whether Glaser’s monthly stand-up show was an educational program. It found that the show involved no systematic instruction or feedback, structured course of training, degree, diploma, certification, instructors, examinations, or teachers. The relationship between the theaters and training center, and occasional career advice Glaser received, did not change that conclusion. The court therefore dismissed the Title IX claim.

State and city claims

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over Glaser’s remaining city- and state-law claims. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice because the federal claims had been dismissed at an early stage.

Personal jurisdiction arguments

Some defendants separately moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court did not decide those motions. It concluded that it could resolve the defendants’ challenges to the legal sufficiency of the claims first and dismiss all claims without addressing whether the court had personal jurisdiction over those defendants.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to close the motion, and closed the case. The Title IX claim was dismissed, and the remaining state and city claims were dismissed without prejudice.