Court Revives Retaliation Claim by Syracuse University Student Who Reported Sexual Assault

Syracuse University must face a claim by a female student who alleges her coaches retaliated against her after she filed a sexual assault complaint against a male athlete.

A federal district court in September 2022 dismissed Jane Doe’s deliberate indifference, hostile environment and retaliation claims brought under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act against the school, the athletic director and her lacrosse team coach.

A federal appeals court this week upheld dismissal of the deliberate indifference and hostile environment claims but the appeals court remanded her retaliation claim for further consideration.

The Northern New York federal district court noted that retaliation against individuals because they complain of sex discrimination is intentional conduct that violates the clear terms of Title IX. However, the court found that conversations Doe had with the university’s athletic officials did not amount to retaliation for her reporting of sexual assault by a male student athlete.

Regarding her retaliation claim, Doe alleges that, after informing the coach that she was considering leaving Syracuse and transferring to a new school, the new coach “encouraged her to think about leaving Syracuse,” told her to “talk to her parents and do what makes her happy,” “further implied that she should not return to Syracuse by asking if she was happy when she visited her family’s home,” told her that “if she didn’t feel safe, maybe she didn’t want to come back” to Syracuse, volunteered to speak to other schools on her behalf, and “asked her if she was moving forward with any legal proceedings.”

The district court found that no reasonable jury could find that the coach’s statements constitute “action of a nature that would deter a reasonable student from making or supporting a discrimination claim.”

Also Doe specifically told the athletic director that that she was not considering transferring due to the student who attacked her, but rather due to playing time. Further, the director’s statement that Syracuse “usually” rescinds scholarship money “where student athletes enter the transfer portal and leave Syracuse in a ‘nasty way’ or ‘burn bridges’ with the school,” was only made after Doe raised the issue of her athletic scholarship, the district court noted.

In this latter case, the district court found that “although close,” no reasonable jury could find the director’s statements were of a nature that would deter a reasonable student from making or supporting a discrimination claim.” Accordingly, the court dismissed Doe’s claim of retaliation.

Doe appealed dismissal of all of her claims. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court’s dismissal of the deliberate indifference and hostile environment claims. But the appeals court disagreed with how the lower court handled the retaliation claim, finding that while it is close, it deserves to be heard, not dismissed.

The appeals court found that Doe “plausibly alleges” that the athletic director and coach took adverse actions against her. Specifically, Doe alleges an “intimidating litigation inquiry and messaging that Doe was no longer welcome at SU” and an intimidating statement regarding “burning bridges” or leaving in a “nasty way” by the official. The appeals panel said Doe plausibly alleges that these conversations were threats that “could well dissuade a reasonable student from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”

Moreover, the appeals court said it is plausible that these threats were made in retaliation for her sexual assault reporting or anticipated pursuit of legal action against the school.

“Whether the school officials made the alleged threats and threatened Doe in connection with the exercise of Doe’s protected rights involve questions of fact. We thus vacate and remand the district court’s order dismissing Doe’s retaliation claim,” the court concluded.