This case has been ongoing for about thirteen months. Before getting into the motion to dismiss, I’ll briefly summarize it for anyone who is new to the case or might need a refresher.

According to the Complaint, Jane Roe (a Syracuse student) had been drinking at a bar. She claimed that when she left, a “black male pulled her into an alley, grabbed her, and tried to kiss her….put his hands down her pants and penetrated her vagina with his finger.” Roe escaped with the help of a friend.

Three months later, she found a black male in the bar who looked similar to her alleged assailant. This man was John Noakes, a fellow Syracuse student. After engaging the police on several occasions she decided to pursue the matter exclusively through the school’s Title IX office.

The Assistant Dean of Student Affairs quickly issued Noakes an interim suspension and forbade him from setting foot on campus. A subsequent no-contact order preventing direct and “indirect” contact with Roe prevented Noakes from gathering evidence in his defense by contacting her acquaintances.

Roe did not show up to the hearing, so it proceeded without her. Noakes’ primary defense was that he was misidentified by Roe. The University Conduct Board found that Noakes assaulted Roe, however, and an Appeals Board affirmed the decision. Noakes was suspended for two years. He then sued.

Alleged Flaws in Syracuse University’s Title IX Investigation

Noakes claimed that Syracuse’s process was flawed in numerous ways. In particular, the school:

• Failed to consider exculpatory evidence (such as text messages and selfies on Noakes’ phone)
• Used Noakes’ drunken state as evidence of guilt but did not consider whether Roe’s drunken state prevented her from accurately identifying her assailant
• Ignored Roe’s contradictory statements
• Failed to acquire sufficient evidence from the police investigation
• Did not allow Noakes the opportunity to read the school’s investigative report against him
• Relied on faulty information
• Did not allow Noakes the opportunity to cross-examine his accuser since she skipped the hearing (note that if accused students skip hearings this is often considered inculpatory by the school)
• Concluded that Roe was more credible despite the Board never hearing testimony directly from her

Noakes brought four claims against the school: Title IX, Breach of Contract, Title VI (race discrimination), and Negligence.

The Motion to Dismiss

As usual, the school filed a motion to dismiss each of Noakes’ claims in an attempt to quickly end the legal battle. Judge Thomas McAvoy granted and denied in part the motion to dismiss on February 26th. Here are some highlights from the Decision and Order, which has been added to our Title IX Lawsuits Database.

The Title IX Erroneous Outcome Claim

For this claim, Noakes needed to prove that the school’s finding him responsible was motivated by his sex. Even if procedural deficiencies, errors, or malice on the part of Syracuse were demonstrable, evidence of gender bias as a causal factor had to be presented for such a Title IX claim to move forward. A “correlation without causation” approach was insufficient. The university’s response to this claim was typical: the plaintiff could not prove Syracuse had treated women accused of sex-assault more favorably.

Complicating such a claim, nearly all students accused of sexual assault are male, and extensive data on school disciplinary outcomes at the Motion to Dismiss stage are lacking. Regardless, there are options.

It’s important to remember that school officials do not need to demonstrate animus against a student on their part of their sex for a Title IX claim to survive a motion to dismiss or to succeed in general. For example, gender bias may simply involve school officials presumptively finding a male student responsible because doing so will ingratiate them to the sex-assault victim advocacy community.

The attorney for Noakes argued that gender bias was infused into the school’s proceedings in response to numerous stimuli, some of which are as follows:

• The Dear Colleague letter issued by the Obama-era Department of Education, and threats by former Department of Education officials regarding revoking funding for non-compliance
• Two OCR investigations of Syracuse
• Complaints, accusations, and reports from students, faculty, and media that Syracuse had not done enough to combat sexual assault
• A report from the Chancellor’s Workgroup on Sexual violence that focused disproportionately on male behavior while simultaneously urging “victim-centered” policies
• A statement from the Chancellor that he will be cracking down on sexual assault

Judge Thomas McAvoy found that the plaintiff had sufficiently presented “a minimal plausible inference of discriminatory intent” and allowed the Title IX claim to move forward.

Title VI Claim

The evidence Noakes put forward to support this race discrimination claim were as follows:

• The accuser is Caucasian, and the accused is African-American
• It is believed that Syracuse follows the trend of schools in disproportionately punishing minorities. The Complaint lists an article in the Atlantic from 2017 in support of this argument.
• Syracuse demonstrated an animus against Noakes and engaged in numerous procedural flaws
• Syracuse assumed Noakes was responsible before a sufficient investigation had been conducted

Judge McAvoy dismissed this claim, stating that:

Unlike Plaintiff’s Title IX claim, Plaintiff here does not situate his claims of racial discrimination within the context of a larger movement that urged universities to believe the claims of alleged white victims over the denials of their alleged black attackers.

He did give leave to re-plead the claim with supporting evidence, however.

Breach of Contract Claim

The plaintiff argued that the student handbook afforded the right to written notice of the allegations and a “fair and impartial” process with “adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard.” While Noakes received written notice of the allegation, it did not list any specific details that would allow him to begin preparing a sufficient defense, such as the location, name of the accuser, and so forth.

Judge McAvoy dismissed this claim on the basis that Noakes received both written notice and a hearing, and that his complaint essentially quibbles over the details of each.

Negligence claim

Judge McAvoy disagreed with the argument that Syracuse breached a duty of care for the same reason given in Prasad v. Cornell and Yu v. Vassar: a negligent investigation is not a cause of action in New York. He also rejected the argument that a duty of care was created by accreditation standards.

Now that the Title IX claim is moving forward, the school will likely either prepare for a longer legal battle or consider settling. This case has been updated in our Title IX Lawsuits Database. We’ll continue to follow this case closely and see how it develops.