Doe v. The Board of Directors of New York University

Background

John Doe, a May 2022 graduate of New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts, alleged that anonymous entries about him were posted on a Google spreadsheet known as the “Blacklist” in March 2022. One entry called him a narcissist, and two accused him of sexual misconduct, including calling him a “rapist.” Posters containing codes linking to the spreadsheet were posted around the NYU campus.

Doe reported the spreadsheet to NYU personnel, including Campus Safety, the Office of Student Conduct, the Bias Response Line, the Office of Equal Opportunity, Ezra Sacks, and Craig Jolley. According to the complaint, NYU provided support resources and academic accommodations, investigated whether it could shut down the spreadsheet, issued a statement discouraging anonymous public accusations, and later gave Doe a letter stating that he had never been the subject of a Title IX investigation. Doe alleged that NYU did not identify or discipline the spreadsheet’s creators, and that the accusations caused him academic, professional, social, and emotional harm.

Doe’s amended complaint asserted two claims under Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. He also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, for breach of contract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The Board of Directors of NYU was named in the original complaint but was removed as a party from the amended complaint.

Title IX Claims

The court analyzed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally valid claim. Doe’s first Title IX claim alleged that NYU was responsible for peer sexual harassment because it was deliberately indifferent to his reports. “Deliberate indifference” means a school’s response to known discrimination was clearly unreasonable under the circumstances. The court held that Doe had not adequately pleaded deliberate indifference.

The court reasoned that Doe did not allege that NYU knew who posted the accusations, whether they were true or false, or how to remove the spreadsheet. NYU nevertheless referred him to mental-health and victim-support services, investigated whether it could shut down the spreadsheet, provided academic accommodations, issued a public statement criticizing anonymous reporting, and gave him a letter stating that he had not been the subject of a Title IX investigation. The court concluded that NYU’s refusal to identify or discipline the creators was not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.

The court also held that the peer-harassment claim independently failed because Doe had not adequately alleged that NYU exercised “substantial control” over both the alleged harassers and the setting in which the harassment occurred. The complaint did not allege that the spreadsheet used NYU resources, an NYU account or device, NYU servers, or any system NYU could edit or delete. The court stated that the fact that NYU students created the spreadsheet and that it could be accessed through codes posted around campus did not establish substantial control.

Doe’s second Title IX claim alleged that NYU’s response to the spreadsheet created a hostile educational environment. The court stated that such a claim requires allegations that a school official with authority to address the discrimination knew about it and failed to respond adequately. Because the court had already found that Doe did not adequately allege deliberate indifference, it dismissed the hostile-environment claim as well.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the Title IX claims, no federal claims remained. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims. The court noted that the case had not reached discovery, initial disclosures, depositions, expert discovery, case management, or a trial date. It concluded that the state-law claims could be pursued in state court without wasteful or duplicative use of resources.

The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Doe’s federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.