2 0-1514

V engal attore v. C ornel l Uni versi ty

1 UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SEC OND C I RC UIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2020 5 ( Argued: Apri l 14, 2021 Deci ded: June 2, 2022 ) 6 Docket No. 20-1514 7

_ ________________________________________________________ 8 DR. MUKUND VENGALATTORE, 9 Plaintiff-Appellant, 10 - v. - 11 CORNELL UNIVERSITY, MIGUEL C ARDONA, Secretary of 12 E d u c a t i o n

, U . S . D e p a r t m e n t

o f E d u c a t i o n

, a n d U . S . DEPARTMENT 13 OF EDUC A TION, 14 Defendants-Appellees
. * 15

_

________________________________________________________

* P ursuant to Federal Rul e of Appel l ate Procedure 43(c)(2), Secretary M i guel C a rdona i s automati cal l y substi tuted as a defendant for f ormer Secretary Betsy DeVos. The C l erk of C ourt i s i nstructed to a mend the offi ci al capti on to conform wi th the above.1 B efore: KEARSE, C ABRANES, and POOLER, Circuit Judges
. 2 A p p e a l b yf o r m e r f a cu l t ym e m b e r f r o ma j u d g m e n t

o f th e U n i t e d S t a t e s 3 Di stri ct C o urt for the Northern Di stri ct of New York, Gary L. Sharpe, Judge, 4 d i smi ssi n g ( A ) c l a i ms a gai nst the uni v ersi ty pri nci pal l y for vi ol ati on of hi s ri ght t o 5 d ue process, and for gende r and nati onal -ori gi n di scri mi nati on i n vi ol ati on o f, 6 r e s pecti vel y, Ti tl e IX of the Educati on Amendments of 1 9 72 a n d T i t l e V Io f th e C i v i l 7 R i g hts Act of 1964; and (B) cl ai ms that documents i ssued b y t h e Uni ted States 8 Depar tment of Educati on vi ol a ted the Admi ni strati ve Procedure Act and the 9 S p e n d in g

C l a u s e o f

t h eC o n s ti t

u ti o n an d c a u s e d o r c o n t r i

b u te d t o t

h e u n i v e r s i t

y ' s a c t s 10 o f

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d th e u n i v e r s i ty ' s m o t i o nf o r j u d g m e n t o n 11 t

h e p l e a d i n g s a n d / o r s u mmary judgment on the grounds that the un i v e r s i tyi s n o t a 12 s t a t e a c t o r, th a t T i t l e I Xd o e s n o t

a u t h o r i z e ap r i v a te r i g

h t o f a c t i o nf o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n 13 i n empl oyment, and that the c ompl ai nt fai l ed to state a c l a i m for nati ona l -ori gi n 14 d i scri mi nat io n under Ti tl e VI. The court granted the Uni ted States defendants' 15 m oti on t o di smi ss the cl ai m s a gai nst them for l ack of standi ng. We fi nd meri t onl y 16 inp l a i n t i ff ' s contenti on that Ti tl e IX al l o w s a p r i v a t e r i gh t o f a c t i o nf o r a u n i v e r s i ty ' s

21 in te n ti o n a l g e n d e r - b a s e d d i s c r i m in a ti o n

a g a in s t af a cu l t ym e m b e r , s u ff i c i e n tl ya l l e g e d 2 herei n. We thus vacate the judgment i n part, and remand for further proceedi ngs. 3 Affi rmed i n part; vacated and remanded i n part. 4 J u d g e C ab r a n e s concurs i n the judgment and opi n i o n o f th e C o u r t

, a n d 5 fi l es a separate opi ni on. 6 C ALEB KRUC KENBERG, Washi ngton, DC ( M a rgaret A. 7 L i ttl e, Ri ch a r d A . S a m p , N e wC iv i lL i b e r ti e s A l l i an c e, 8 W a s h i n g t o n , D C , o nth e b r i e f ) , f

or Plaintiff-Appell a n t . 9 MIC HAEL L . B A N K S, P h i l a del phi a, Pennsyl vani a (Emi l y 10 R e i neberg, M organ L ewi s & Bocki us, Phi l adel phi a, 11 P e n n s y l v an i a ; W e n d y E . T a r l o w, O ffi c e o f Un i v e r s i t

y 12 C ounsel , C o rnel l Uni versi ty, Ithaca, N e w York, on 13 the bri ef), for Defendant-Appellee Cornell University
. 14 KA R E N F O L S T E R L E S P E RA N C E , A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a t e s 15 Att o r n ey, Albany, New York (Antoi nette T. Bacon, 16 Acti ng Uni ted States At t orney for the Northern 17 Di stri ct of New Y ork, Wi l l i a m Larki n, Assi stant 18 Uni t e d States A ttorney, Albany, New York, on the 19 bri ef), for Defendants-Appellees Miguel Cardona and 20 U.S. Department of Education
.

31 K EARSE, Circuit Judge : 2 P l a i nti ff Mu ku n d V e n g a l a tt o r e, afo r m e rA s s i s t an t P r o f e s s o r a t d e f e n d a nt 3 Cornel l U ni versi ty ("C o rnel l " or the "Uni versi ty"), appeal s from a j udgment of t he 4 U ni t ed St a t es Di stri c t C ourt for the Northern Di stri ct of New York, Gary L. Sharpe, 5 Ju d

g e , d i s m i s s i n gh i s a mended compl ai nt ("C ompl ai n t " ) a l l e g i n gp r i n c i p a l l y( A ) th a t 6 i n di sci pl i ni ng hi m i n response to hi s student assi stan t ' s al l egati on that he had an 7 i nappropri ate rel ati o nshi p wi th her, C o rnel l di s c r i mi nated agai nst hi m on the basi s 8 o f gender and nati onal ori gi n i n vi ol ati on o f , r e specti v el y, T i tl e I X o f the Educati o n 9 A m endments of 1972, 20 U.S.C . § 1681 et seq . ("Ti tl e I X"), and Ti tl e VI of the C i v i l 10 Ri g

h t s A c t o f

1 9 6 4, 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 d e t s e q . ( " T i tl e V I " ) ; an d( B ) t h a t d e fe n d an t s Un i te d 11 S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o na n d i t s S e c r e tary (the "federal defendants") v i o l a t e d 12 the Admi ni strati ve Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C . § 551 et s e q . , a n d the Spendi ng 13 C l a u s e o f th e C o n s t i tu t i o ni ni s s u i n ggu i d a n c e d o cu m e n t st h a t c a u s e d o r c o n t r ib u t e d 14 t o C ornel l ' s gender d is c r i m inati on. The d i stri ct court granted C o rnel l ' s moti on for 15 j udgment on the pl eadi ngs and/ or summary judgment, rul i ng pri nci pal l y that Ti t l e 16 I Xd o e s n o t

a u th o r i z e ap r i v a te r i g

h t o f a c ti o nf o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o ni ne m p l o y m e n t , a n d

41 that the C ompl a int l acked suffi ci ent al l egati ons o f nati onal ori g i n di scri mi nati o n t o 2 state a cl ai m under Ti tl e V I. Th e c o u r t g r anted the federal defendants' moti on t o 3 d i s m i s s t

h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t

th e mfo rl a c k

o f s t an d in g . Th e c o u r t

a l s o d i s m i s s e d ac l a i m 4 by Vengal attore agai nst C ornel l under 42 U.S.C . § 1983 for deni al o f due process, 5 ru l in g t

h a t C o rn e l l i sn o t a s t a t e a c t o r ; a n d i t d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e p e n d e n t j u r i s d i c ti o n 6 o v e r a s t a t e - l a wc l a i ma g a i n s t C o r n e l l f o r d e f a m a t i o n . V e n g a l a tt o r e ch a l l e n g e s t h e s e 7 rul i ngs on appeal
. 8 For the reasons that fol l ow, w e concl ude that T i t l e I X a f fords a pri vate 9 ri ght of acti on for a uni versi ty' s i ntenti onal gender-based di scri m i nat i o n a gai nst a 10 f acul ty member, and that the C ompl ai nt suffi ci entl y asserts such a cl ai m; we thus 11 v acate a n d r e m a n d for further proceedi ngs on Vengal attore' s Ti tl e IX cl ai m. We 12 t

h e r e fo r e a l s o v a c a te th e d i s c r e t i o n a r yd i s m i s s a lo f h i ss t a te - l a w c l a i mfo rd e f a m a ti o n . 13 W e a ff

i r mt h e d i s m i s s a lo f th e T i t l e V Ian d d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m s a g a in s t C o rn e l l , a sw e l l 14 a s the di smi ssal of the cl ai ms agai nst the federal defendants.

51 I. BAC KGROUND

2 C o r n el l ' s moti on to di smi ss requ ested j u dgment on the pl eadi ngs 3 " and/ or" summary judgment, and the di stri ct court stated that the moti on was 4 g ranted. Gi ven that the court "di d not purport to . . . make f actual fi ndi ngs," and 5 a ssessed th e C ompl ai nt' s al l egati ons, rather than any proffered evi dence, "al l of the 6 f a c t s a l l e g e d i n [ p l a i n t i ff ' s ] c o m p l a i n t [ ] m u s t b e t a k e na s t r u e fo rp u r p o s e s o f r e v i e w , " 7 C a n n o n v. University o f Chicago , 441 U .S. 677, 680 n.2 (1979). We al so "consi d er . . . 8 d o c u m e n t s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e c o m p l a in t b y

r e fe r e n c e . " T

e l l a b s , In c . v . M a ko r

I s s u e s 9 &R i

gh t s , L t d . , 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007) (" Tell a b s " ) . Th e p r i n c i p a lf a c tu a la l l e g a t i o n s o f 10 the 846-paragraph C ompl ai nt, taken as true, are summari zed bel ow.

11 A . An Overview of the Complaint's Allegations as to the Events 12 Vengal a ttore i s a mal e of Indi a n descent. He became a tenure-track 13 A ssi stant Professor of Physi cs i n C ornel l ' s C ol l ege of Arts and Sci en c e s i n 2 0 0 9 . In 14 that posi ti on, wi th the ai d of assi stants, h e d e s i gned and conducted l aboratory

61 experi ments. One assi stant, a graduate student--cal l ed "Jane Roe" i n thi s 2 l i t i g a t i o n - - w o r k e d o n a V enga l a t t o r e e x p e r i m e n t f r o m2 0 0 9 u n t i l l a t e 2 0 1 2 . S h e , i n t e r 3 a lia , struggl ed wi th her l ab a ssi gnments a nd often took professi onal cri ti ci sm 4 personal l y; was somewhat unprofessi onal i n her l anguage and c onduct; fa l s e l y 5 a c c u s e d o t

h e r s o f b r e a k i n gl ab e q

u i p m e n t; a n d o bj e c t e d t o " w o r k [ i n g ] l o n gh o u r s " a s 6 s h e stated woul d be e x p e c t e d o f " I n d i a n s . " ( S e eC o m p l a i n t ¶ ¶ 2 0 3 , 2 1 1 , 2 5 3
- 2 5 7

, 2 6 0 , 7 3 9 6, 4 0 7 . ) R o e w i t h d r e wfr o m

V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s p r o

j e c t in N o v e m b e r2 0 1 2 . In

t h e S p r in g 8 o f

2 0 1 3 , s h e t o l dap r o f

e s s o rwh o c o l l a

b o r a te din

V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s r e s e a r c h " i f Ih a v e m y 9 w ay, [Dr. Vengal attore] wi l l have a hard ti me getti ng tenure." ( Id . ¶ 292.) 10 In May 2 014, duri ng the Physi c s D e p artment' s c onsi derati on o f 11 V engal attore' s request for tenure, Roe sent the t enure revi ew commi ttee a l etter 12 a l l e g i n gth a t

V e n g a l a t t o r e h a d o n c e a n g r i l yth r o w na fi v e - p o u n d p i e c e o f e q u i p m e n t 13 a t her. In September 2014, two days after l earni ng that the commi ttee h a d 14 recommended that tenure be gran t e d , Roe t ol d Physi cs Professor Ri tchi e Patterson 15 that Veng a l a t t o r e h a d e n g a g e d i ns e x u a l mi sconduct wi th her. That accusati on was

71 r e l a y e d t o A l a nM i t t m a n , D i r e c t o r o f

C ornel l ' s Offi ce o f

W o r k f o r c e P o l i c ya n d L ab o r 2 R el ati o ns. 3 D e a n G r e t c h e n R i tte r , r e s p o n s i

b l e fo ra p p r o v a lo f

te nu r e d e c i s i o n s i nth e 4 Col l ege of Arts and Sci ences, was i nformed of Roe' s a ccusati on w h i l e s h e was 5 c o n s i d e r i n g V e n g a l a t t o r e ' s t e nu r e r e q u e s t . M i ttm an

p r o c e e d e dt o c o n d u c t

nu m e r o u s 6 in f o r mal i ntervi ews of Roe, keepi ng the Dean i nformed of Roe' s al l egati o n s ; 7 V e n g a l a t t o r e w a s n o t s i m i l a r l yin fo r m e d
. ( S e e , e . g . , i d
. ¶ ¶ 3 2 1 , 3 2 7

, 3 3 2
- 3 3 4, 3 4 0 , 3 6 1 . ) 8 On Febru a r y 1 3 , 2 0 15, Dean Ri tter deni ed Vengal attore' s request for t enure. ( See 9 i d . ¶¶ 336, 342.) 10 One busi ness day l ater, Mi t t m a n, wi th Sarah Affel , C ornel l ' s Ti tl e IX 11 c oordi nator ( t h e "i nvesti gators"), conducted the fi rst i ntervi ew wi th Roe that was 12 r e c o r d e d
. I nth a t F e b r u a ry1 6, 2 0 1 5 inte r v i e w , R o e t o l d t

h e inv e s t i g a t o r s th a t

s h e h a d 13 been raped by Ven g a l a t to r e i n l ate 2010, and that she thereafter had a secret 14 c onsensual sexual rel a ti onshi p wi t h h i m u n t i l December 2011. ( See, e.g. , id
. ¶¶ 344, 15 3 49, 351.)

81 On February 2 7, 2015, Vengal attore, sti l l unaware o f Roe' s accusati ons, 2 a ppeal ed t o th e U n i v e r s i ty appeal s commi ttee, chal l engi ng the deni al of hi s req uest 3 f or tenure. On the nex t b u s i n e s s day, March 2, Mi ttman summoned hi m to appear 4 a t

th e T i t l e I X o ffi c e o n

M a r c h3 "to ' revi ew [an] al l eged r o m a n t i cr e l a t i o n s h i p w i tha 5 s t u dent under [hi s] supervi si on i n or around the 2011 c al endar year.' " (C omp l a i n t 6 ¶ 363.) 7 I nth e M a r c h3 i n t e r v i e w , V e n g a l a tt o r e w a s i n f o r m e d o f R o e ' s a l l e g a t i o n 8 that he and she had had a consensual se x u a l r e l a ti onshi p. Vengal attore deni ed i t. 9 T o ward the end of the three-hour i ntervi ew, he w a s i n f o r m e d th a t R o e a l s o a c c u s e d 10 h i mo f

r a p e . H e r e s p o n d e d b y aski ng for the assi stance of c o u n s e l ; th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s 11 t ol d hi m that was not necessary, and c onti nued wi th the i ntervi ew. ( See 12 i d
. ¶¶ 369-370.) Vengal attore throughout deni ed havi ng had any sexual , romanti c, 13 o r other unprofessi o nal rel ati onshi p wi th Roe. 14 As descri bed i n Part I .C .1. bel ow, the C o mpl ai nt al l e g e d that the 15 i nvesti gati on was conducted i n a manner that wa s d e s i g n e d to support Roe' s 16 a ccusati o n . F o r e x a m p l e , R o e h a d t o l d the i nvesti gators that the sexual rel ati onshi p

91 began duri n g t h e fi nal week of the Fal l 2010 semester, on a day when Vengal attore 2 h a d n o t

c o m e t o t

h e l ab a n d s h e w e n t t o h i s h o u s e a t 7 p . m . t och e c k

o n h i m . Sh es a i d 3 he i nvi ted her i n and began ki ss i n g h e r ; th a t s h e i n i t i a l l y r esi sted but then agreed to 4 have sex wi th hi m; that she co n s i d e r e d t h i s t o b e rape; that she spent the ni ght wi th 5 hi m a nd went w i th hi m to the l ab the fol l owi ng m orni ng; and tha t th e y then had a 6 secret c o n sensual sexual rel ati onshi p unti l December 2011. ( See C ompl ai nt 7 ¶¶ 3 4 4
- 3 5 1 . ) Wh e n V e n g a l a t t o r e a s k e d o nw h a t d a t e R o e c l a i m e d h e had raped her, 8 t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s r e f

u s e d t o a n s w e r . I n s t e a d th e ya s k e d V e n g a l a ttore to take a b l a n k 9 December 2010 cal enda r and mark off for them the days he had been i n town. ( See 10 i d . ¶¶ 438-439.) 11 As d escri bed i n Part I.C .2. bel o w, the i nve s t i g a t ors' eventual wri tten 12 report to the Dean, whi l e recommendi n g t hat V engal a ttore not be f ound to have 13 raped Roe, stated thei r concl usi on t h at Roe' s al l egati o n of thei r consensual sexual 14 r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s s u p p o r t e d b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f the evi d e n c e . W i th o u t a h e a r i n g

, 15 Dean R i t t e r adopted the i nvesti gators' report and found that Vengal a ttore had had 16 a n i nappropri a t e s e x u a lr e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h R o e ; s h e a l s o f o u n d th a t h e h a d l i ed to the

101 in v e s t i g a t o r s . A s a r e s u l t , D e a n R i t t e ri m p o s e d a tw o - w e e ks u s p e n s i o n w i th o u t p a y, 2 w hi c h Veng a l a t t o r e s e rved i n June 2017 after the deni a l of tenure had become fi nal
. 3 Hi s academi c appoi ntment empl oyment at C ornel l ended i n June 2018. 4 "C ornel l ' s deci s i o n to deny tenure i s not at i ssue i n thi s l awsui t" 5 ( V e n g a l a tt o r e b r i e f o n a p p e a la t

1 3 ) , t h a t m a tte rh a v in g

b e e n r e s o l v e d b ya2 0 1 8 ru l in g 6 by the New Y ork Supreme Court, A p p e l l ate Di vi si on, that " the sexual mi sconduct 7 a l l e g a t i o n s r a i s e d b y " Roe had "no[t] . . . i mproperl yi n fl u e n c e d th e t e nu r e d e c i s i o n , " 8 a nd "that C ornel l had not acted arb i t r a r i l yo r capri ci ousl y duri ng the tenure revi ew 9 p r o c e s s " ( C o m p l a i n t ¶ ¶ 6 4 5
- 6 4 6 ) . I n s t e a d , V e n g a l a t t o r e a s serts h e r e th a t , d e s p i t e h i s 10 s i gni f

i c ant a ch i e v e m e n t s an d h i s h a v in g b e e n a w a r d e d s e v e r a l

mi l l i o n d o l l a r s o f

g r an t 11 m oney, he has been deni ed a c a d e m i c appoi ntment or l aboratory access at other 12 un i versi ti es. ( Id
. ¶¶ 6 49, 654, 657.) He attributes thi s, o n i nformati on and bel i e f , to 13 C o r n e l l ' s kn o w i ng communi cat i o no f f a l s e fi n d i n g s th a t h e h a d a s e x u a lr e l a t i o n s h i p 14 w i th a student and l i ed about i t. ( See id . ¶¶ 654-657; see also id . ¶¶ 713, 725-729.)

111 B . Allegations of Gender Bias and National Origin Bias 2 The Compl ai nt al l eged that there w e r e both overt and i mpl i ci t 3 ma n i f e s t ati ons of bi as agai nst Vengal attore on the basi s of hi s gender or nati o n a l 4 o ri gi n. Wi th respect to gender, the C ompl ai nt i ncl u des the fol l owi ng al l egati ons as 5 t o conduct and s t a t e m e n t s by Roe or by C ornel l offi ci al s who w ere advi sors t o 6 d eci si onmakers. 7 A i r l i aSh a f fe r - M o a g , an un d e r g r a d u a te s t

u d e n t , j o ine dV e n g a l a tt o r e ' s l a b 8 i n 201 2 . I n c o nnecti o n wi th Vengal attore' s a ppeal of Dean Ri tter' s F ebruary 2015 9 d eni a l of hi s tenure request, Shaffer-M o a g s e nt a l etter to the tenure appeal s 10 c ommi ttee i n Au gu s t 2 015 stati ng that i n 2012 she had wi tnessed Roe attempti ng to 11 have undergr a d u a t e men deni ed the opportuni ty to joi n V engal a ttore' s l ab, whi l e 12 a d v o c a t in gth e a c c e p t a n c e o f w o m e nw i the q

ui v a l ent or l esser credenti a l s. ( S e e, e . g . , 13 C o m p l a in t

¶ ¶ 2 7 1 , 5 6 5
- 5 6 6, 5 7 0 . ) In t h a t r e g a r d, Sh a ffe r - M o a g

c i te d h e r o w np e r s o n a l 14 e x peri ence. When she and two undergraduate m en w ere appl yi ng to joi n 15 V engal attore' s l ab, Roe attempted to bar the two men. ( See id
. ¶ ¶ 2 7 1-273, 570-572.) 16 Y e t

" Sh a ffe r - M o a g

, b yh e ro wn

r e c k o n in g

, h a d a' mu c

h w e a ke r b a ck gr o u n d in

p hy s i c s

121 t

h a nd i d th e tw o m e n

, s o th e r e w a s n o r e a s o n t o t ryt o b a rt

h e mfr o mth e l ab w i th o u t 2 barri ng' her as wel l
. " ( I d . ¶ 274; see id . ¶ 573.) 3 Shaffer-Moag, a fter joi ni ng the l ab, beca m e f ri endl y wi th Roe. In her 4 l e t t e rt ot

h e a p p e a l s c o m m i t t e e s h e s a i d th a t " R o e h a d t o l d h e ri n

2 0 1 2 th a t

[ R o e ] w a s 5 ' sexi st agai nst men.' " ( I d . ¶ 569; see i d . ¶ 270.) 6 The Uni versi ty appeal s commi ttee i n December 2015 u phel d 7 V e n g a l a tt o r e ' sa p p e a lfr o m t h e d e n i a lo f

t e nu r e , l e a d i n gt o c o n s i d e r a ti o n o f h i ste nu r e 8 a ppl i c a t i o n b y a new commi ttee; the new commi ttee recommended that tenure be 9 g ranted. ( See C ompl a i nt ¶¶ 626-627.) On February 16, 20 1 6 , however, Dean R i tter 10 f ormal l y overrul ed the new commi tte e ' s recommendati on and a gai n deni ed 11 V engal attore tenure. ( See id
. ¶ 6 28.) On F e b r u a r y 26, 2016, Vengal a ttore met wi th 12 P rofessor Saul Teukol sky, the Physi cs Department' s i nteri m chai r who "had been 13 i nvol ved i n the tenure revi ew p r o c e s s . " ( I d
. ¶ 6 2 9 . ) " D u r in gth a t m e e t i ng, Professor 14 T e u k o l s kyt o l d D r . V e n g a l a t t o r e th a t t h ef a c u l t yh a dc o n s i d e re d

R o e ' s a c c u s a t i o n s t o h a v e 15 b e en false and malicious , but al so sai d that t h e f a c u lty w o u ld take no action , sayi ng, ' Can 16 y o u i m ag i n ew h a tw o u l dh a ppen if we took a c t i o n aga i n s ta b l o n d e , f e m a l es t u d e n t ? T w i t t e r

131 w oul d expl ode and the enti re de p a r t m e n t w o ul d be l abel ed bul l i es. We don' t want 2 that.' " (C ompl ai nt ¶ 630 (emphases ours).) 3 Wi th respect to Vengal attore' s c l a i m under Ti tl e VI, the C ompl ai nt 4 a l l e g e d t hat there were nati onal

- o ri gi n-rel ated statements by Roe and one by a 5 m ember of a facul t y commi ttee consi deri ng hi s request for tenure. Accordi ng t o 6 g r a d u a te s t

u d e nt Y o g e s h

P a ti l , w h o w o r k e d w i t

h R o e in V e n g a l a tt o r e ' sl a

b , R o e m a d e 7 " r a c i a lc o m m e n t s " s u ch a s " te l l in g

D r . V e n g a l a tt o r e in

fr o n t o f t h e o t h e rs t u d e n t s, ' Y o u 8 a r e a l lI n d i a n s . O f c o u r s e y o u s t i c k t o g e th e r . ' " ( C o m p l a in t ¶ 4 0 9 . ) S h e a l s o t o l d P a t i l 9 that he, Vengal attore, and graduate student Sri vatsan C hakram "coul d be expected 10 t o work l on g h o urs because ' they are I ndi ans, who are hardworki ng l i ke C hi nese.' " 11 ( Id .) 12 As to the comment by a facul ty commi ttee member, the C ompl ai nt 13 a l l eged that after two facul tyc o m m i ttees had consi dered Vengal a ttore' s request for 14 t e nu r e ( s e e, e . g . , i d
. ¶ ¶ 3 2 2
- 3 2 3 ) , " y e t a n o t h e r f a c u l tyc o m m i t t e e , th e F a c u l tyA d v i s o r y 15 C o m m i t t e e o n

T e nu r e A p poi ntments (FAC T A), was c o n v e n e d t o r e v i e w " th e t e nu r e 16 r e q

u e s t " [ f ] o l l o w in g

D e a nR i t t e r ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n " th a t t e nu r e b e d e n i e d ( i d
. ¶ 3 3 7 ) .

141 F AC TA recommended denyi ng tenure. ( See id
. ¶ 338.) In i ts report, one member, 2 P rofessor Paul ette C l ancy of C ornel l ' s C ol l ege of Engi neeri ng, wrote, 3 "I found [Dr. Vengal attore' s] i nteracti o ns wi th the graduate 4 students to be unacceptabl e and unsupportab l e by a major 5 research uni versi ty l i ke C ornel l
. Clearl y t h e o n ly students who are 6 prepared to take the abuse he dishes out are both me n a n dt hey are both 7 f

ro m th e I n d ia n s u b c o n t i n e n t

, w h e re p e rh ap s t h ec u l t u reb e tw e e n a d v is o r 8 and protégé is different ." 9 ( C ompl ai nt ¶ 339 (quoti ng FAC TA report (emphasi s i n C ompl ai nt)).)

10 C. Cornell's Processing of Roe's Accusations 11 Th e C o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d th a t u n t i l2012 , c o m p l a i n t s o f s e x u a lm i s c o n d u c t 12 had been governed by Cornel l ' s C ampus C ode of C onduct ( " C a m pus C ode" or 13 " C ode"). The C ode al l owed i nvest i g a ti o n of compl ai nts as to al l eged mi sbehavi or 14 " th a t

h a d o c c u r r e d w i thi n one y e a r o f th e c o m p l a i n t

b e i n gfi l e d
. " ( C o m p l a i n t ¶ 1 0 6 . ) 15 A person accused of m i s c o n d u c t w a s e n t i t l e d t o h a ve the assi stance of an advi sor at 16 a l ls t a g e s ; a n d p r i o r t o th e fi l i n go f f o r m a l c h a r g e s " th e J u d i c i a lA d m i n i s t r a tor " c o u l d 17 not i ntervi ew the accused w i thout gi v i ng hi m wri tten noti c e o f t h e matter to be 18 d i scussed and hi s rel ati onshi p to i t . ( See id . ¶¶ 108-109, 111.) The accused was al so 151 enti tl ed, inter a lia , to have an adve rsari al heari ng before a board compri si ng three 2 f a cu l t

y m e m b e r s, o n e s tu d e n t

, a n d o n e n o n f a c u l tye m p l o y e e ; a n d th e b u r d e nw a s o n 3 c l a i m a n t s t o p r o v e t h e i rc l a i m s b yc l e a ran d c o nv in c in g e v i d e n c e . ( S e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 1 1 6
- 1 2 8 . ) 4 Si nce 1996 Cornel l had ha d a p ol i cy o n "Romanti c and Sexual 5 R e l a ti o n s h i p s B e tw e e nS tu d e n t s a n d S t a ff " ( o r " R o m a n c e P o l i c y " ) w h i c hw a s n o t p a r t 6 o f the C a mpus C ode but rather was set outi nth e F a c u l tyH a n d b o o k ( s e eC o m p l a i nt 7 ¶ ¶ 1 74, 1 7 6 ) . Th eR o m an c e P o l i cy" g e n e r a l ly p r o v i d e d t

h a t af a cu l t y m e m b e r' s h o u l d ' 8 n o t

' s i m u l t a n e o u s l yb e r o m a n t i c a l l yo r s e x u a l l yi n v o l v e d w i tha s tu d e n t w h o m h e o r 9 s h e t e a c h e s , a d v i s e s , c o a c h e s , o r s u p e r v i s e s i na ny w a y ' b e c a u s e a ' c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t 10 a r i s e s w h e n

a n i n d i v i d u a l e v a lu a te s t h e w o r k o r p e r fo r m an c e o f ap e r s o n w i t h wh o m 11 he or she i s engaged i n a romanti c or sexual rel ati onshi p.' " ( Id
. ¶ 1 7 5 (quoti ng 12 R o m an c e P o l i cy ) ) ; s e e a l s o i d
. ¶ 5 7 7 . ) C o rn e l l ' s " C o m m i tte e o n P r o fe s s i o n a l

S t a t u s " w a s 13 g i v e n

" e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o no v e r t h e r o m an ti cr e l a ti o n s h i p s p o l i cy . " ( I d
. ¶ ¶ 1 7 7
- 1 7 8 . ) 14 T hat "C ommi ttee was to be a group of f acul ty" a nd i t "was requ i red to establ i sh 15 r e v i e wp r o c e d u r e s, wh i c h' m u s tc o m p o r t w i tht h e p r e c e p t s o f

d u ep r o c e s s . ' ( e m p h a s i s 16 i n ori gi nal )." ( Id
. ¶¶ 179-180.)

161 In 2012, C ornel l am e n d e d t he C ampus C ode to adopt a new set o f 2 procedures requi red by defendant Uni ted States Department o f Educati on ("DoE") 3 ( see, e.g. , C ompl ai nt ¶¶ 703-709), cal l ed "Pol i cy6 . 4 . " ( i d
. ¶ 1 2 9 ) . A s d i s c u s s ed i n Part 4 I . D . b e l o w

, t h e C o m p l a in t

a l l e g e d t h a t P o l i c y 6 . 4 c u r t a i l e d m a nyo f t h e r i g h t s t h a t h a d 5 been afforded to a n a c c u s ed by the C a mpus C o de. For exampl e, rather than the 6 C a m p u s C o d e ' s c l e a r - a n d

- convi nci ng-evi dence s t a n d a r d ( s e e i d
. ¶ 1 2 8 ) , u n d e r P o l i c y 7 6 .4 the i nvesti gator wa s t o a ppl y a " preponderance of the evi dence standard" 8 ( i d
. ¶ 1 5 8 ) ; i na d d i ti o n , " [ n ] op a r t

yh a dab u r d e n

o f p r o o f " ( i d
. ¶ 1 5 9 ) . A l s o " P o l i c y6 . 4 9 d i d not requi re that the i nvesti gator di scl ose e v i d e n ce f avorabl e to the accused t o 10 a nyo n e , a t a n y stage of the i nvesti gati o n" ( i d
. ¶ 163); and i t provi ded that i f the 11 a c cu s e d r e f

u s e d t o d i s cu s s t

h e m a t t e r, th e r e f

u s a l " c o u l d r e s u l t

i na na d v e r s e fi n d i n g " 12 ( id . ¶ 143). 13 Pol i cy 6 . 4 ' s t i me l i mi t for a student' s fi l i ng a compl ai nt agai nst a 14 supervi sory facul ty mem ber was the earl i er of one year after the student was no 15 l onger under t h e facul ty member' s supervi si on or three years from the date of the 16 a l l eged acts. ( See Compl ai nt ¶ 140.) The i n v esti g ators acknowl edged--and had

171 a l erted Dean Ri tter--that Roe' s compl ai nt agai nst Veng a l a t t o r e " ' w a s t i m e -b a r r e d b y 2 P ol i cy 6.4.' " ( Id . ¶ 581; see, e .g. , id . ¶¶ 582, 454.) 3 The C ompl ai nt al l eged that C ornel l ' s processi ng of Roe' s accusati ons 4 a gai nst Vengal attore empl oyed a hybri d process ( see id
. ¶ 577) by appl yi ng some 5 standards favorabl e to Roe that were permi tted onl y by Pol i cy 6.4--whi ch the Dean 6 a n d the i nvesti gators knew was i nappl i c abl e because of the ti me bar--and that the 7 i nqui ry was conducted wi thout regard to i mparti al i ty, rel i abi l i ty, or due process.

8 1 . The Investigation 9 Mi ttman had been i nformed a s e a r l y as September 2 014 of Roe' s 10 a l l e g a t i o nth a t s h e a n d V e n g a l a t t o r e h a d b e e ni nv o l v e d i na s e x u a lr e l a t i o n s h i p . ( S e e 11 Compl ai nt ¶¶ 324-326.) Al though Ven g a l a t t o r e w a s n o t i n f o r m e d o f

that al l egati o n 12 u nti l M arch of 2015 ( s ee id
. ¶¶ 361-363), Mi t tman " tol d Roe" i n December 2014 "that 13 Cornel l was worki ng ' very aggressi vel y to address i ssues of access, preventi on and 14 c ul ture c hange' ' under Ti tl e I X ' " ( id
. ¶ 335). Through mi d-February 2 015, Mi ttman 15 proceeded to have numerous unrecorded conversa t i o n s w ith Roe; he shared Roe' s

181 a l l egati ons wi th Dean Ri tter whi l e s h e c o n s i d e r e d V e n g a l a t t o r e ' s r e q u e st for tenure; 2 an d h e a s s u r e dR o e t h a t h e r c o n c e rn s h a d b e e n

r e l a y e d t oD e an

Ri tte r . ( S e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 3 6 1 , 3 3 27, 332-334, 340-341.) 4 When V engal attore wa s i ntervi ewed by the i nvesti gators, he objected 5 that i t was unf a ir t o pl ace on hi m the burden of provi ng that, 4-5 years earl i er, an 6 a l l eged event had not o ccurred; the i nves t i g a tors di d not di spute that they vi ewed 7 hi ma s h a v i n g

th a t b u r d e n . ( S e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 4 46-447.) When Vengal attore asked whether 8 R oe coul d be di sci pl i ned for m a ki ng fal se accusati ons agai nst hi m, Mi ttman 9 responded onl y by suggesti ng that her ac c u sati o ns were not fal se. ( See 10 i d
. ¶¶ 457-458.) The i nv e s t i g a t o r s determi ned that her a l l egati on of a sexual 11 r e l a t i o n s h i p w i th Vengal attore, whi c h fi rst surfaced i n 2014, coul d not be v i e w e d a s 12 ar e c e n t

fa b r i c a t i o n b e c a u s e s h e h a d " n o r e a s o n t o l i e " a b o u t h e rs e x u a la c ti v i t

yin 2 0 1 1 13 ( id . ¶ 599)-- i .e. , "no apparent moti ve to l i e" ( id . ¶ 469). 14 For eval uati on of Roe' s accusati ons and her possi bl e moti vati on for 15 f abri cati ng them, V engal attore asked the i nvesti g ators to pose certai n questi ons t o 16 R o e an d t o in te r v i e wc e r t a in o t h e r p e r s o n s wh o w e r e k n o w l e d g e a

b l e ; b u t h i s r e q u e s t s

191 w e r e l argel y i gnored. For exampl e, he provi ded the names of more than a d o z e n 2 persons--p r o f e s sors, cl ose c ol l aborators, or assi stants--who were fami l i ar w i th hi s 3 e x p e r i m e n t s , w i thth e a t m o s p h e r e i nh i s l ab , a n d w i t h R o e ' s w o r k

an d c o n d u c t

th e r e . 4 ( See C ompl ai nt ¶¶ 375, 514.) The i nvesti g ators di d not contact most of them. They 5 d i d , however, contact another professor whom they "encouraged
. . . t o share any 6 ' rumors' he had heard" about Vengal a ttore. ( Id . ¶¶ 481-482.) 7 Vengal a tt o r e a l s o a l l e g e d th a t th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' p r o c e d u r e s v i o l a t ed hi s 8 r i g

h t t o d u e p r o c e s s . H e w a s i n f o r m e d o r a l l yo f a l l e g a t i o n s a g a in s t

h i m , a n d i n i t i a l l y 9 w a s t o l d o n l yp a r t o f the accu s a t i o n . ( S e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 3 6 2
- 3 6 3 , 3 6 7
- 3 6 8 , 4 6 1
- 4 6 2 . ) Wh e nh e 10 w as eventual l y i nformed that Roe wa s a c c usi ng hi m of rape, he asked to have 11 a ssi stance of counsel ; Mi ttman and Affel tol d hi m that was n o t n e c e s sary ( see 12 i d
. ¶ ¶ 3 6 9
- 3 7 0 ) , b u t th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s thereafter asked hi m for i nformati on he cl earl y 13 w oul d have been advi sed not to provi de, i ncl u d i ng essenti al l y, as descri bed i n Part 14 I . A . a

b o v e, at a

b u l a ti o n o f th e D e c e mb e r 2 0 2 0 d a y s o nw h i chR o e c o u l d p l a u s ib l ys a y 15 t

h e a l l e g e d r a p e h a d o c c u r r e d ( s e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 4 3 8
- 4 3 9 ) . I nc o n t r a s t , th e C o m p l a i n t

a l l e g e d 16 t

h a t C o r n e l lp r o v i d e d R o e w i thc o u n s e l, a n d th a t th e i n v e s ti g a t o r s ' f

in a lr e p o r t

t o th e

201 Dean i ndi cated that Vengal a ttore had been represented by counsel a l though i n fact 2 he had not. ( S ee id . ¶¶ 365, 382, 586.) 3 V e n g a l a t t o r ea l s o w a s n o t a l l o w e d t o q

u e s ti o n R o e o r a ny o f

th e p e r s o n s 4 w ho tol d the i nvesti gato r s t h a t R o e had tol d them, before 2014, of a sexual 5 r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h V e n g a l a tt o r e . An d t

h e inv e s ti g a t o r s a l l o w e d R o e an dt h o s e p e r s o n s 6 t o c o n fe r w i the a c ho th e r before and after thei r i n t e r v i e w s a n d s ub s e q u e n t l yt o h a v e 7 the i nvesti gators a l ter the notes as to what t h e y h a d s ai d. ( S ee Compl ai nt ¶¶ 418, 8 4 22-424.)

9 2 . The Investigators' Report and the Dean's Findings 10 Mi ttman and Affel reported the resul ts o f thei r i nvesti gati on to Dean 11 Ri tter on September 25, 2015 ("M i t t m a n - A ffe lR e p o r t " o r" R e p o r t " ) , r e c o m m e n d i n ga 12 f i n d i ng that Vengal attore had vi ol ated C ornel l ' s 1996 pol i cy agai nst R omanti c a n d 13 Sexual Rel ati onshi ps Between S t udents and Staff ( see Compl a i nt ¶¶ 576-577). The 14 R eport stated that "[a]l l eged vi ol ati ons of the pol i cy are r e v i e w ed under the 15 ' p r ep o n d e r a n c eo f th e e v i d e n c e ' s t a n d a r d
. Th i s i s th e s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f a p p l i e d b yth e

211 i nvesti gators and the dean, not a burden of proof b o r n e by either the s tudent or faculty 2 m ember ." ( Id
. ¶ 579 (qu oti ng Mi ttman-Affel Report (emphases o u r s ) ) .) The Report 3 " de t e r m i ned that t he lack of evidence supporti ng a year-l ong romanti c rel ati onshi p 4 a ctually supported Roe's alleg a t i ons , because ' [c]ommon sense experi ence i s that 5 s e c r e ti v e r e l a ti o n s h i p s c a r r i e d o u t b yf a c u l ty m e m

b e r san ds t

u d e n t s c a n b e

c a r r i e d o u t 6 w i thout others, i ncl u di ng other students and c ol l eagues, b e c o m i ng aware.' " 7 ( C ompl ai nt ¶ 616 (quoti ng Report (emphases ours)).) 8 The Report al so concl uded that R oe had no moti ve to fabri cate any 9 sexual mi sconduct by Vengal attore. T h e C ompl ai nt al l eged that the i nvesti gators 10 d i sregarded evi dence from Dr. Swati Si ngh a nd other c ol l e a g u e s o r associ a tes o f 11 V engal attore that, inte r a l i a , Roe' s work on Vengal attore' s projects was vi ewed as 12 subpar a nd R oe acknowl edged she was havi ng di ffi cul t ies ( s ee, e.g. , C ompl ai nt 13 ¶¶ 203-204, 275, 669(c)(i i )); that Roe was vi ewed a s b e i n g l e s s d edi cated and hard14 w o r k in g

, an d f a rl e s s k

n o w l e d g e ab l e , th a nh e r l ab c o l l e a gu e s ( s e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 2 1 2
- 2 1 5 ) ; an d 15 that Roe had ma de i nappropri ate ethni c comments to her col l eagues, ranti ng about 16 " Indi ans" ( id . ¶¶ 259-260). The Re p o r t c r e d i t ed testi mony by Roe' s si ster and fri end

221 that Roe had tol d them i n 2011 that she was i nvol ved wi t h V e n g a l a t tore; the 2 i nvesti gators found i t i m pl ausibl e to suggest tha t R o e h a d b e gu n t o fabri cate a fal se 3 a ccusati on agai nst hi m so far i n advance of hi s el i g ibi l i ty to request tenure. 4 Th e C o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d th a t th e i n v e s t i g a t ors g a v e i n a d e q u a t e w e i gh t

t o 5 the t esti m ony o f wi tnesses such a s " D r. Bhave, C hakram, P a tel [ sic ], Saha a nd Dr. 6 S in gh

- - w h o h a d d e s c r ib e d R o e a s b e i n g u n t r u s tw o r t

hya n d n o t c r e d ib l e , b e c a u s e t h e 7 in v e s t i g a t o r s p e r c e i v e d th a t th e s e w i tn e s s e s w e r e I n d i a n . " ( C o m p l a i n t ¶ 6 9 3 ( g ) ( v i i ) . ) 8 A nd whi l e the Report l i sted some t w o d o z e n persons whom the i nvesti gators had 9 i ntervi ewed, i t di d n o t m e nti on that Vengal a ttore had asked them to i ntervi ew 10 10 o thers ( see id
. ¶ 584) w hom th e y d i d n o t contact at al l
. Those 10 i ncl uded 11 S h a ff er-Moag, who had fi rst-hand evi den c e a s t o R o e ' s o w ng e n d e r b i a s a n d w h o i n 12 f act, some two months pri or to the i nvesti gator s ' d e l i v e r yo f th e i r R e p o r t

, g a v e such 13 evi d ence to the tenure appeal s commi ttee ( see id . ¶¶ 267-274, 565-566, 569-574). 14 On October 6, 2015, Dean Ri tt e r adopted the Mi ttman-Affel 15 recommendati on and wrote to Vengal attore i n part as fol l ows: 16 "I fi nd tha t a preponderance of evi dence supports the c l ai m that 17 you were i nvol ved i n a sexual rel ati onsh i p wi th y our f ormer 231 graduate student over a peri o d of several m onths whi l e al so 2 s e r v i n ga s her graduate advi so r . A s a r e s u l t , I fi n d th a t

y o u h a v e 3 vi ol ated the u ni ve rsi ty' s ' Romanti c and Sexual Rel ati onshi ps' 4 pol i cy by engagi ng i n s u c h c o n d u c t. I al so fi nd that there i s not 5 si gni fi cant e v i d e nce to support the cl ai m that the i ni t i al sexual 6 encounter between you and the graduate stude n t i n vol ved a 7 sexual a ssaul t . . . . Gi v en the fi ndi ng of a n i nappropri a te sexual 8 r e l a t i o n s h i p , Ia l s o f in d t h a t in y o u r d e ni a lo f

as e x u a lr e l a t i o n s h i p 9 you have l i ed to the i nvesti gators i n thi s case." 10 ( C ompl ai nt ¶ 622.) The Dean stated that " she ' i ntend[ed] to i mpose s i g n i f i c a nt 11 s a n c t i o n s o n ' D r . V e n g a l attore," al though those sancti ons woul d be postponed un t i l 12 the concl usi on of hi s tenure appeal . ( Id
. ¶ 6 2 3.) As i ndi cated i n Part I.A. above, the 13 sancti on she i m posed was a two-week sus p e n s i o nw i th o u t p a y, w h i c hV e n g a l a t t ore 14 served i n June 2017. ( See id
. ¶ 638.)

15 D. Claims Against the Federal Defendants 16 The C ompl ai nt ass e r t e d ni ne c l ai m s a gai nst the federal defendants, 17 a l l egi ng that w hen Cornel l a d o p ted Pol i cy 6.4 i n 2012 and el i mi nated many of the 18 Campus C ode' s pri or procedural protecti o ns for di sci pl i nary i nvesti gati ons and 19 proceedi ngs, i t di d so because of coerci on by the DoE. ( S ee C ompl ai nt ¶ ¶ 1 3 0 , 1 33,

241 1 35-136, 703-7 0 9 . ) T h e DoE, charged wi th i mpl ementi ng and enforci ng statutes 2 r el ated to hi gher educati on, i ncl udi ng Ti tl e IX, had i ssued a seri es of gui danc e 3 d ocuments advi si ng school s to "p r e v e nt unwel come sexual advances by facul ty 4 t oward students" ( i d
. ¶ 31), and stat i n g t h at DoE' s Offi ce of Ci vi l Ri g hts ("OC R") 5 w o u l d a p p lyap r e s u m p t i o nth a t a l ls e x u a lc o n t a c t

b e tw e e nf a c u l tya n d s tu d e n t s w a s 6 nonconsensual ( id . ¶ 33). 7 In 2 0 1 1 , OC R publ i shed a " Dear C ol l eague Letter" that, inter alia , 8 " di rected school s to take i mmedi ate acti on t o el i mi nate harassment, prevent i ts 9 recurrence, and address i ts effects" (C ompl ai nt ¶ 38 (i nternal qu otati on marks 10 o m i t t e d ) . ) I t

r e q u i r e d th a t s c h o o l s u s e " a p r e p o n d e r a nce of the evi de n c e s t a n d a r d o f 11 p r o o f " wh e n

inv e s ti g a tin g

a l l e g a t i o n s o f

s e x u a lm i s c o n d u c t

( i d
. ¶ 3 9 ) , a n d i t

" s t r o n g l y 12 d i scourage[d] school s from al l owi ng the parti es personal l y to questi on o r 13 c ross-exami ne each other duri ng [a] heari ng" ( id
. ¶ 46 (i nternal q u o t a t i o n marks 14 o m i t t e d ) ) . Th e 2 0 1 1 D e a r C o l l e a gu e L e t t er al so warned that, whi l e OC R wi l l "seek[] 15 t o o b t a i n vol untary compl i ance f rom reci pi ents," i t "may i ni t i ate proceedi ngs t o

251 w i thdraw Federal fundi ng" w h e n "a reci pi ent does not come i nto compl i ance 2 v ol untari l y." ( Id . ¶ 48 (i nternal qu otati on marks omi t ted).) 3 I n2 0 1 4, O C R c r e a t e d a p ub l i cl i s t

o f s c h o o l s th a t

i t w a s i n v e s t i g a t i n gf o r 4 potenti al l y vi ol ati ng "thei r obl i g a t i o nt o c o m p l yw i thT i t l e I X i n the i mpl ementati o n 5 o f prompt and equ i tabl e sexual m i sconduct g ri evance procedures." ( Id
. ¶ 61.) "In 6 M a y2 0 1 5 , O C R a d d e d C o r n e l lt o th e l i s t . " ( I d
. ¶ 6 5 . ) S in c e t

h e n , " C o rn e l lh a s b e c o m e 7 the target of si x more OC R i nvesti gati ons." ( Id . ¶ 66.) 8 The C o mpl ai nt al l eged that C ornel l ' s el i mi nati on of pri or due process 9 protecti ons for persons accused of sexual mi sconduct w as the resul t o f coerci on by 10 the D o E th r o u g h i ncl u si on of C ornel l on DoE l i sts of school s vi ewed as l ax i n 11 p r e v e n tin g

s e x u a lm i s c o n d u c t

an d t h r o u g h t h et h r e a t o f w i t h d r a w in g

fe d e r a lf u n d in g 12 f o r C o r n e l l ' s e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s . ( S e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 7 0 3
- 70 9 ; i d
. ¶ 7 0 9 ( " C o r n e l lw a s c o e r c e d 13 t o d e nyP l a i nti ff Dr. Vengal a ttore due process ri ghts by Defendant [ D o E ] f o rfe a r o f 14 bei ng subject to an enfor cement acti o n.").) 15 Th e C o m p l a i n t a l l e g ed, inter alia , that the coerci ve nature of D o E ' s 2 0 1 1 16 Dear C ol l eague L etter and gui d ance documents (col le c t i vel y "Ti tl e IX Gui dance")

261 v i ol ated the Spendi ng Cl ause of t he C onsti tuti o n; and that the gui dance had been 2 i ssued i n vi ol ati on o f t he noti ce-and-comment provi si ons of the APA and was 3 a rbi trary and capri ci ous.

4 E . The Decision of the District Court 5 V e n g a l a tt o r e c o m m e n c e d t h e p r e s e n t a c ti o n

in 2 0 1 8, p r i n c ip a l lya s s e r tin g 6 th at gender bi as and nati onal ori gi n bi as were moti vati ng f actors i n the manner i n 7 wh i c hC o r n e l lc o n d u c t e d i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o ni n t o R o e ' s a l l e g a t i o n s, made fal se fi nd in g s 8 that he had engaged i n a sexual rel ati o n s hi p wi th Roe and l i ed about i t, and, based 9 o n those fi ndi ngs, di sci pl i ned hi m . He asserted cl a i ms agai nst Corne l l under 10 ( 1) Ti tl e IX, whi ch prohi bi ts gende r d i scri mi nati on i n a n educati on program that 11 recei ves federa l f u n d s ; (2) Ti tl e VI, whi ch prohi bi ts di scri mi nati on on the basi s o f 12 nati ona l ori gi n by any program or acti vi ty recei vi ng federal fi nanci al assi stance; 13 ( 3) 42 U.S.C . § 1983 for deni al of hi s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i gh t t o d u e p r ocess; and (4) state 14 l aw for d e f a m a t i o n , a l l e g i n g th a t C o r n e l lkn o w in g l yc o m m u n i c a t e d f a l s e fi ndi ngs to 15 o th e r u n i v e r s i t i e s , a nd requesti ng as rel i ef, inter alia , a judgment "decl ari ng tha t " h i s

271 " r e p u t a t i o ns h o u l d b e r e s t o r e d " ( C o m p l a in t P r a y e r for Rel i ef ¶ (v)(i i )). Vengal att o r e 2 a l so asserted cl ai ms agai nst the federal defendants as descri bed i n Part I.D. above. 3 C o r n e l lm o v e dfo rj u d g m e n t o n t h e p l e a d in g s u n d e rF e d
. R . C i v . P . 1 2 ( c ) 4 a nd/ o r for summ a r y judgment di smi ssi ng the cl ai ms agai nst i t on vari ous grounds. 5 I t argued p r in c i p a l l y t hat Ti tl e IX does not a uthori ze a pri vate ri g ht of acti on for 6 d i s c r i m i n a t i o ni ne m p l o y m e n t , a n d th a t

i na nye v e n t

, th e C o m p l a i n t

w a s i n s u ffi c i e n t 7 t o state a cl a i m; that the C ompl ai nt l acked s u f f i c i ent al l egati ons of nati onal ori gi n 8 d i scri mi nati on to state a cl ai m und e r T i t l e VI; and that the C ompl a i nt fai l ed to state 9 a c l a i m under § 1983 because C ornel l i s not a state actor. The federal defendant s 10 m oved under Fed. R. C i v. P . 12(b)(1) and 1 2 (b)(6) to di smi ss Vengal attore' s cl ai ms 11 a gai nst them for l ack of Arti cl e III standi ng or for fai l ure to state a cl a i m. 12 In a Memorandum-Deci si on and Order dated May 1, 2 020, the di stri ct 13 c ourt di smi ssed the C ompl ai nt. See Vengalattore v. Cornell University, 3: 1 8
- cv-1124, 14 2 02 0 W L 2 1 0 4 7 0 6 ( N . D . N . Y . M a y1 , 2 0 2 0 ) ( " D i s t r i ct C ourt Opi ni o n"). Fi rst, the court 15 g r a n t e d the federal defendants' Rul e 12(b)(1) moti on to d i s m i s s f o r l a c ko f s t a n d i n g . 16 Noti ng that i n order to have Arti cl e III standi ng, a pl ai nti ff must al l ege that he 17 suf f e r e d a n i njury that i s t raceabl e to conduct o f the defendant and that c a n be 281 r e d r e s s e d by a fav o r ab l e d e c i s i o n , s e eD i s t r i c t C o u r t

O p i n i o n , 2 0 2 0 W L 2 1 0 4 7 0 6 , a t * 3 2 ( ci ti ng Lujan v. Defenders of Wildl i f e, 5 0 4 U . S . 5 5 5 , 5 6 0
- 6 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ) , the court found that 3 t h e C o m p l a in t

b o thf a i l e d " t o p l a u s i

b lya l l e g eany c a u s a lc o nn e c t i o nb e tw e e n[ D o E ' s ] 4 Gu i d an c e D o cu m e n t s a n d V e n g a l a t t o r e ' s in j u r i e s, " an d f a i l e d t o s h o wt h a t h i s in j u r i e s 5 w oul d be redressed by a ju d g m e n t a g ai nst the f ederal d efendants, Di stri ct C ourt 6 Opi ni o n, 2 0 2 0 WL 2104706, at *4. The di stri ct court rejected as purel y specul ati ve 7 V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s s u g g e s ti o n s t h a t C o r n e l lw o u l d n o t

h a v e f o u n d h i mi n v i o l a t i o no f th e 8 R o m an ti can d S e x u a lRe l a ti o n s h i p s B e tw e e nS tu d e n t s an d S t a ff p o l i cya b s e n t t h e D o E 9 T i tl e I XG u i d an c e d o cu m e n t s, o rt h a t h i s r e p u t a ti o n

w o u l d b e s a l v a g e d b yaj u d g m e n t 10 a gai nst the federal defendants. See id . at *4-*5. 11 The di stri ct court, w i thout reference t o C ornel l ' s answer or to evi dence 12 th a t mi ght support summary judgment, granted the moti on to di smi ss each o f 13 V e ngal attore' s federal cl ai ms agai nst C ornel l for fai l ure o f the C ompl ai nt to state a 14 c l a i m . A s t o the T i t l e I Xc l a i mo f g e n d e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n

, th e c o u r t

f o u n d th a t T i t l e I X 15 d oes not authori ze a pri v ate ri ght of acti on for an empl oyee. It n o t ed that al though 16 thi s C o urt had not addressed the questi on, "[a]n overwhel mi n g m aj ori ty of di stri ct

291 c ourts i n thi s C i rcui t have found that an i mpl i ed pri vate ri ght of acti on does not 2 e x i s t [ ] u n d e r T i t l e I Xf or empl oyees al l egi ng gender di scri mi nati on i n th e t e r m s a n d 3 c ondi ti ons of thei r empl oyment." Di stri ct Cour t O p i n i o n , 2020 WL 2104706, at *5 4 ( i nternal qu otati o n marks omi tted). 5 A s t o th e T i t l e V Ic l ai m, the court found tha t th e C o m p l a i n t

f a i l e d t o s e t 6 o ut facts from whi ch the court c oul d "pl ausibl y i nfer that the d eci si onmakers at 7 Corne l li n t e n t i o n a l l yd i s c r i m i n a t e d agai nst [Vengal a ttore] on the basi s of hi s race i n 8 resol vi ng Roe' s compl ai nts about hi m." I d
. a t * 7 . I t n o t e d th a t

, o f th e tw o r e ferences 9 t o V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s n a ti o n a lo r i g in c i te d in t h e C o m p l a in t

, o n e w a s b y R o e an d t

h e o t h e r 10 w as by a member of a facul ty commi t tee consi d eri ng Vengal attore' s req u e s t f o r 11 t enure, "nei ther of whom are al l eged to have been d e c i si onmakers i n C o rnel l ' s 12 r e s o l u ti on of Roe' s al l egati ons agai nst Vengal attore." Id . The court foun d th a t e v e n 13 i f

" [ D e a n ] R i t t e r, th e a l l eged fi nal deci si onmaker, . . . was aware of these st a t e m e n t s , 14 t

h e c o urt cannot pl ausibl y i nfer that they were a s ub s t a n t i a lo rm o t i v a t i n gf a c t o r - - o r 15 a ny factor at al l --i n resol vi ng Roe' s compl ai nts agai nst Vengal attore." Id
.

301 Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s § 1 9 8 3 d u e p r o c e s s c l a i mth a t 2 C o rn e l l ' s inv e s ti g a ti o n an d d i s c i p l in e v i o l a te d h i s r i gh t t o d u e p r o c e s s, c o n c lu d in g t h e 3 Compl ai nt l a cked suffi ci ent factual al l egati ons to show that C ornel l , a pri vate 4 in s t i tu t i o n

, w a s as t a te a c t o r . S e e i d
. a t * 8 . An d, h a v in g

d i s m i s s e d a l lo f

V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s 5 f ederal cl ai ms, the di stri ct court al so di smi ssed hi s state-l aw cl a i m f o r defamati on, 6 d ecl i ni ng to exerci se suppl emental juri sdi cti on over that cl ai m. See id
. 7 Thi s appeal fol l owed.

8 II. DISC USSION

9 On a p p e a l , V e n g a l a tt o r e c o n te n d s p r in c i p a l lyt h a t t h ed i s t r i c t

c o u r t e r r e d 10 ( 1 ) i nr u l i n g th a t T i tl e IX, deal i ng wi th gender di scri mi nati on i n educati on, d o e s n o t 11 a f f o r d a pri vate ri ght of acti on to a school empl oyee, and (2) i n rul i ng t h a t t h e 12 C o m pl ai nt di d not al l ege suffi ci ent facts to state a c l a i m under Ti tl e V I f o r 13 d i scri mi nati on on the basi s of nati onal ori g in . H e c ontends that the c o urt erred i n 14 d i smi ssi ng o n the pl eadi ngs hi s d u e process cl a i m agai nst C ornel l , argui ng that

311 d i scovery i s r equi red i n order to determi ne whether Cornel l i s a state actor. He 2 c hal l enges the d i smi ssal of hi s cl ai ms agai nst the federal defendants on the ground 3 o f l ack of Arti cl e III standi ng, argui ng that the d i s t ri ct court mi sunderstood "the 4 nature of [hi s] i njuri es." (Vengal attore bri ef on a ppeal a t 5 1 . ) F o r t he reasons that 5 f ol l ow, we concl ude that T i tl e IX al l ows a pri vate ri ght o f act i o n f o r a uni versi ty' s 6 i ntenti onal gender-based di scri mi nati on agai nst a f acul ty member a nd t h at the 7 C o m p la i nt suffi ci entl y stated such a cl ai m; we therefore vacate the di smi ssal of th e 8 T i t l e IX cl ai m. We affi rm the di smi ssal of hi s other federal cl ai ms.

9 A . Standard of Review as to Sufficiency 10 A d e c i s i o nth a t a s t a tu t e d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e a p r i v a te r i gh t

o f a c t i o ni s o f 11 c ourse a purel y l egal rul i ng, whi c h w e revi ew d e novo . T he matte r o f whether a 12 c o m p l a i n t

s t a t e s a c l a i m on whi ch rel i ef can be granted i s l i kewi se a questi on o f l a w 13 t

h a t w ec o n s i d e r d e

n o v o, wh e t

h e r r a i s e d b ym o ti o n

t o d i s m i s s u n d e r

R u l e 1 2 (b ) ( 6 ) , s e e

, 14 e .g. , M e n a ke r

v . H o f s t r a Un i v e rs i t

y , 9 3 5 F . 3 d 2 0 , 2 9
- 3 0 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 19) (" Menaker "); Doe v. 15 Co l u m b i a Un i v e rs i t y , 8 3 1 F . 3 d 4 6 , 5 3 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 1 6 ) ( " D o e v . Co l u m b i a " ) ; L i t t l e

j o h n v . C i t

y

321 o

f Ne w York

, 795 F.3d 297, 306 (2d C i r. 2 015) (" Littlejohn "); Rothstein v. UBS AG , 70 8 2 F .3d 82, 90 (2d C i r. 2013) (" Roth s t e i n " ) , o rb y a m o t i o nf o rj u d g m e n t o nth e p l eadi ngs 3 pursuan t t o Rul e 12(c), see, e.g. , Lively v. WAFRA Investment Advisory Group, Inc. , 6 4 F .4th 293, 301 (2 d C i r . 2 0 2 1 ) ; L y n c h v . City of New York , 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d C i r. 2020). 5 To survi v e such a moti on, "' a compl ai nt must contai n suffi ci ent factual 6 m atter, a ccepted as true, to "state a c l ai m to rel i ef t h a t i s pl ausibl e on i ts face."' " Id
. 7 a t 74 (quoti ng A s h c r o f tv . I q b a l , 5 5 6 U .S. 662, 678 (2009) (" Iqbal ") (quoti ng Bell Atlantic 8 C orp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (" Twombly " ))). 9 A c l a i m has faci al pl ausibi l i ty when the pl ai nti ff pl eads f actu a l 10 c o n t e n t th a t a l l o w s t h e c o u r t t od r a wt

h er e a s o n a

b l e infe r e n c e t

h a t 11 th e d e fe n dant i s l i abl e for the mi s c o n d u c t a l l e g e d
. [ T

w o m b l y , 5 5 0 12 U . S . ] a t 5 5 6 . Th e p l a u s ib i l i t

y s t an d a r d i s n o t

a k in t o a " p r ob ab i l i ty 13 requi rement," but i t asks for more than a sheer possi bi l i ty t hat a 14 defendant has acted unl awful l y. Ibid
. 15 Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678. Further, we 16 must consi der the compl ai nt i n i ts enti rety, a s wel l as other 17 s o u rces courts o rdi nari l y exami ne when rul i ng on Rul e 12(b)(6 ) 18 m o ti o n s t o d i s m i s s , in p a r ti cu l a r

, d o cu m e nt s in c o r p o r a te d int o t h e 19 compl ai nt by refer e n c e, and matters of whi ch a court may take 20 judi ci al noti ce.

331 Ka p l an v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL , 9 99 F.3d 8 42, 8 54 (2d C i r. 2021) (" Ka p l a n " ) 2 ( qu oti ng Tellabs , 551 U.S. at 322) ( oth e r i nternal quotati on m arks omi tted). " The 3 proper q u esti on i s whether there i s a permi ssi bl e rel evant i nference from ' all of the 4 f a c t s a l l e g e d , t a k e n c o l l e c tiv e ly

, ' n o t wh e t h e ran in fe r e n c e i s p e r m i s s i

b l e b a s e d o n

' any 5 i ndi vi dual al l egati on, sc r ut i n i z ed i n i sol ati on.' " Kaplan , 999 F.3d at 854 (quoti ng 6 T ellabs , 551 U.S. at 323 (emphasi s i n Tellabs )). 7 " Wh e n th e r e a r e w e l l

- p l e a d e d f a c tu a la l l e g a ti o n s, ac o u r t s h o u l d a s s u m e 8 t h e i r v e r a c i tya n d then determi ne whether they pl a usibl yg i v e r i s e t o a ne n t i t l e m e n t 9 t o r e l i e f
. " I

q b a l , 5 5 6 U . S . a t 679. "De t e r m in i n gw h e th e r ac o m p l a i n t s t a t e s a p l a u s ib l e 10 c l a i mfo rr e l i e f

. . . [ i s ] ac o n te x t- s p e c i f

i c t a s kth a t r e q u i r e s t h e r e v i e w in g

c o u r t t o d r a w 11 o n

i t s j u d i c i a le x p e r i e n c e a n d c o m m o n s e n s e . " I

d
. " I f t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d a r e a m

b i gu o u s, 12 the appl i cabl e substanti ve l a w defi nes the range of i nferences thata r e p ermi ssi bl e." 13 K

aplan , 999 F.3d at 854; see, e .g. , Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 675.

341 B . The Substantive Framework 2 T i t l e I X , e n a c te d a s p a r t

o f t h e E d u c a ti o n A m e n d m e n t s o f 1 9 72 , p r o v i d e s 3 that 4 [n]o person i n the Uni ted States shal l , on t he basis of sex , be 5 excl uded from parti ci pati on i n, be deni ed the b enefi ts of, or be 6 subjected to d i scri mi nati o n u nder any educati on program or 7 acti vi ty recei vi ng Federal fi nanci al assi stance. 8 2 0 U.S.C . § 1681(a) (emphasi s added). T i t l e I X ' s p r o h i b i t i o n w a s p a t t e r n e d a ft e r th a t 9 i n Ti t l e VI of the C i vi l Ri ghts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C . § 2000d, whi ch provi des that 10 [ n ] o p e r s o n in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s h a l l, o n t h eg r o u n do f ra c e , c o l o r , o r 11 national origin , be excl uded from parti ci pati on i n, be deni e d t he 12 b e n e f i ts of, or be subjected to d iscrimination under any program or 13 activity receiving Federal financial assistance
. 14 4 2 U.S.C . § 2000d (emphases added). 15 Whi l e Ti tl e VI, appl yi ng t o "any" program recei vi ng fe deral fi nanci al 16 a ssi stance, speci fi es race, col or , a n d n a ti onal ori gi n as prohi bi ted bases for 17 d i scri mi nati on, a n d T i t l e I X, d e a l i n gw i th s u c hp r o g r a m s i ne d u c a t i on speci fi es onl y 18 sex as a prohi bi ted basi s, the goal s of both of th o s e T i t l e I X a n d T i t l e V Ip r o h ib i t i ons 19 a re t o prevent, o n a n y b a si s speci fi ed, d i scri mi nati on by a n enti ty recei vi ng federal

351 g o v e rnm e n t f u n d in g . Th e p r o v i s i o n s a r eo t h e r w i s e i d e n ti c a lin

s c o p e an d t

h ru s t , an d 2 t h e y "use i denti cal l anguage to descri be the benefi t ed cl a ss," i.e. , "per s o n s . " C a n n o n , 3 4 4 1 U . S . a t

6 9 5 . Thu s, c a s e s b r o u g h t u n d e r T i tl e I Xa r eg e n e r a l lyt o b e an a l y z e d i nth e 4 same way as cases under Ti tl e VI. S ee, e .g. , id
. at 694-98; Barn e s v. Gorman , 536 U.S. 5 1 81, 185 (2002) ( the Supreme C ourt has " i nterpreted Ti tl e IX c o n si stentl y wi th 6 T i t l e V I " ) ; Z e n o v . P i n e P l a i n s Ce n t ra lS ch o o l D is t r i c t , 7 0 2 F . 3 d 6 5 5 , 6 6 5 n . 9 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 1 2 ) 7 ( "Hi stori cal l y, the Supreme C ourt has appl i ed para l l el anal yses to cl ai ms brought 8 u nder Ti tl e IX and Ti tl e VI."). 9 Further, al l of the bases o f di scri mi nati on prohi bi ted by Ti tl e IX and 10 T i t l e V I are among the bases of di scri mi nati o n prohi bi ted i n Ti tl e VII of the C i vi l 11 R i g hts Act of 1 9 6 4 ("Ti tl e VII"), as a mended, 42 U.S.C . § 2000e et seq . Ti tl e VII 12 provi d es that 13 [i]t s hall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer 14 . . . to di scharge any i ndi v i dual , or otherwi se t o 15 di scri mi nate a g ai nst any i ndi vi dual wi th respect to h i s 16 compensati on , t e r m s , c o n d it i o n s , o r p r i vi l eges of 17 empl oyment, because of such individual's race, c olor, religion, 18 sex, or national origin
.

361 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( e m p h a s e s a d d e d ) . Thu s, w i t h r e s p e c t t o e m p l o y m e n t

i s s u e s, 2 T i t l e V I I ' s p r o v i s i o n s - - w h i c ha r e n o t l i m i t e d t o fe deral l y funded progr a m s b u t a p p l y 3 g eneral l y to empl oyers havi ng 15 or more empl oyees and affecti ng i nterstate 4 c ommerce, see i d
. § 2000e(b)--prohi bi t e m p l oyers from di scri m i nati ng o n any of the 5 i nvi di ous bases speci fi ed i n Ti tl e VI and Ti tl e IX. 6 Because Ti tl e VII' s di scri m i nati on proh i bi ti on overl a ps Ti tl e IX' s 7 prohibi ti on agai nst sex di scri mi nati on i n educati o n programs, and because 8 empl oyment di scri mi nati on cl ai m s often have much i n common wi th cl ai ms under 9 T i t l e IX, we "have
. . . l ong i nterpre t e d T i t l e IX ' by l ooki ng to . . . the casel aw 10 in te r p r e tin g T i tl e V I I, ' " M e n a ke r , 9 3 5 F . 3 d a t

3 1 ; s e e , e . g . , Y u s u f v . V a s s a r Co l l e ge , 3 5 F . 3 d 11 7 09, 714-15 (2d C i r. 1994) (" Yusuf "); see general l y Doe v. C olumbia , 831 F.3d at 55-56 12 ( "Ti tl e VII cases provi d e th e p r o p e rf r a m e w o r kf o r a n a l y z i n gT i t l e IX di scri mi nati o n 13 c l ai ms."); i d
. at 55 (ci ti ng Y u s uf , 35 F.3d at 714; Weinstock v. Columbia University, 224 14 F .3d 33, 42 n.1 (2d C i r. 2000); Murray v. New York University C o l l eg e o f D entistry, 57 15 F .3d 2 4 3 , 2 48-49 (2d Ci r. 1995); Papelino v . Albany College of Pharmacy of Union 16 University, 633 F.3d 81, 89 (2d C i r. 2011)).

371 A c c o r d in g ly , w e h a v e an a ly z e d T i tl e I Xc l a i m s u n d e rt h e b u r d e n - s h i fti

n g 2 fr a m e w o r k s e t

o u t in M c D o n n e l lD o u g l a s Co r p . v . G re e n , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 9 2 ( 1 9 73 )
- - a T i t l e V I I 3 c ase. S ee, e.g. , Doe v. Columbia , 831 F.3d at 55-56. Under thi s anal ysi s, a n d g i v e nth e 4 p l a u s i

b i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s o f I

q b a l, in o r d e rt o s u r v i v e aR

u l e 1 2 (b ) ( 6 ) m o ti o n

t o d i s m i s s 5 ac l a i mu n d e rT i tl e I X , ac o m p l a in t

s h o w in g t h a t t h ep l a in ti ff

w a s w i t hin t h e p r o te c te d 6 c l ass, was q u al i fi ed for the posi ti on, and was subjected to an adverse acti on, need 7 o nl y "al l eg[e] facts gi v i ng ri se to a pl ausibl e mi ni mal i nference o f b i a s" on the basi s 8 o f sex. Id . at 48; see id . at 54 ( f a c t s e v e n" m i n i m a l [ l y ] . . . s u g g e s t i ng an i nference that 9 the empl oyer acted wi th di scri m i n a t o r y moti vati on" suffi ce to " rai se a temporary 10 ' presumpti on' of di scri mi natory moti vati on" (quoti ng Littlejohn , 795 F.3d at 307)). 11 G i v e nth a t w e a p p l yth e s a m e a n a l y s e s t o c l a i m s b ro u gh t u n d e r T i t l e I X 12 a nd Ti tl e VI, thi s standard for pl eadi ng di scri mi natory i nten t w i l l govern our 13 c o n s i d e r a ti o n o f V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s T i tl e V Ic l a i ma s w e l l a sh i s c l a i m u n d e r T i tl e I X . An d, 14 r ecogni zi ng that some facts may gi ve ri s e t o a ni n fe r e n c e o f b i a s w i th o u t

n e c e s s a r i l y 15 reveal i ng i ts provenance, w e c onsi der the two cl ai ms i ndi vi d ual l y i n a ssessi ng the 16 suffi ci ency of the C o mpl ai nt to meet the mi ni mal burden of showi ng p l a usibi l i ty to

381 i nfer that hi s treatment by C ornel l w a s m o t i vated by sex, a s prohi bi ted by Ti tl e IX, 2 a nd/ o r by nati onal ori gi n, as prohi bi ted by Ti tl e VI.

3 C. Vengalattore's Title IX Claim 4 It i s now wel l s e ttl ed that, w hi l e Ti t l e IX does not i tsel f provi de for a 5 p r i v a t e c a u s e o f a c t i o nt o e n f o r c e i t s r e q u i r e m e n t s, ap r i v a te r i g h t o f a c t i o ni s i m p l i e d 6 ina v a r i e tyo f

c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n1 9 79, in Ca n n o n v . U n i v e rs i t y o f Ch i c ag o , 4 4 1 U . S . 6 7 7

, 7 the Supreme C ourt hel d that a person appl yi ng t o be a student at a uni versi ty that 8 r e c e i v e s fe d e r a l

a s s i s t an c e c an

b r in g ap r i v a te a c ti o n

u n d e r T i tl e I Xo n t

h e g r o u n dt

h a t 9 t h e un i v e r s i t

y r e j e c te d h e ra p p l i c a ti o n

o n t h e b a s i s o f h e rg e n d e r . Th e C o u r t r e a s o n e d 10 t

h a t ( 1) "Ti tl e IX expl i ci tl y confers a benefi t on persons di scri m i nated agai nst o nth e 11 basi s of sex, and [ the appl i cant] i s cl earl y a member of that cl ass for whose speci al 12 benefi t the statute was enacted"; ( 2) "C ongress i ntende d t o create Ti tl e IX remedi es 13 c omparabl e to those avai l abl e under Ti t l e VI and [C on g r e ss] understood Ti tl e VI as 14 a uthori zi ng an i mpl i ed pri vate cause of acti on f o r v i c ti ms of the prohi bi ted 15 d i scri mi nati on"; (3) "[t]he award o f i ndi v i dual rel i ef to a pri vate l i ti g ant wh o has

391 p r o s e cu te d h e ro wn s u i t i s . . . f u l lyc o n s i s t e nt

w i t h

- - an d in s o m e c a s e s e v e n

n e c e s s a ry 2 t o--the or d e r l y enforcement of the statute"; a nd ( 4) " the subject matter [does not] 3 invol v e[] an a rea basi cal l y of c oncern t o the States." Id
. at 688-709. The C o u r t 4 therefore concl uded that "[n]ot onl y the words and hi story o f T i tl e I X, but al so i ts 5 subject matter and underl yi ng purposes, c ounsel i mpl i cati on of a cause of acti on i n 6 f avor of pri vate vi cti ms of di scri mi nati on." Id
. at 709. 7 In North Haven Board of Education v . B ell , 456 U.S. 512 (1982) (" North 8 H

aven "), th e C o urt rul ed that "empl oyment di scri mi nati on comes wi thi n the 9 p r o h ib i t i o no f

T i t l e I X . " I

d
. a t 5 3 0 . I nth a t

c a s e , tw o s c h o o lb o a r d s c h a l l e n g e d fe d e r a l 10 r e gu l a t i o n s th a t " p r o h ib i t

fe d e r a l l y funded educati on program s f r o md i s c r i m i n a t i n g 11 o n the basi s of gender wi th r e s p e c t t o empl o yment," contendi ng that "empl oyment 12 pra c t i c e s o f

educati onal i nsti tuti ons" were not wi thi n the i ntended reach of Ti tl e IX. 13 I

d
. at 514, 517. The C o urt rejected that cont e n ti o n , rul i ng that the Uni ted States 14 D e p a r tm e nt o f

E d u c a t i o nh a d n o t

e r r e d i ni n t e r p r e t i n gT i t l e I X ' s " b r o a dd i r e c ti v e t h a t 15 ' no person' may be di scri mi nated agai nst on the basi s of gender " t o p r ohibi t 16 d i scri mi nati on i n empl o yment. Id . at 520. The Supreme C ourt stated that § 1681(a)

401 w hi c h prohi bi ts d i scri mi nati on agai nst "person[s]," "appears, o n i ts face, to i ncl ude 2 e m p l o y e e s a s w e l la s s tu d e n t s , " i d
. ; a n d the fact that Ti tl e IX does not e x p r e s s l yr e fe r 3 t o e m p l o y e e s d o e s n o t in d i c a te t

h a t C o n g r e s s " m e a n t

s o m e h o wt o l i m i t

th e e x p a n s i v e 4 l a n gu age o f

§ [ 1 6 8 1 ] , " i d
. a t

5 2 2 . I t n o t e d th a t

p r i o r o p in i o n s o f

th e " C o u r t

r e p e a t e d l y 5 ha[d] recogni zed t hat C o ngress has provi ded a vari ety of remedi es, at ti m es 6 o verl a ppi ng, to eradi cate empl oyment di scri mi nati on." Id . at 536 n.26. 7 In F ra n kl i n v . G w i n n e t t Co u n t y P u b l i c S ch o o l s , 5 0 3 U . S . 6 0 , 74
- 75 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e 8 Supreme C ourt rul ed that the i mpl i ed ri ght of acti on under Ti t l e IX encompasses 9 c l ai ms for monetary damages for i ntenti onal vi o l ati ons of T i tl e IX, al though not for 10 u ni ntenti onal vi ol ati ons. S ee also Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 11 U .S. 274, 290-91 (1998) (Ti tl e IX' s pri vate ri ght o f acti on a l l o w s s ui t f or a school ' s 12 d e l ib e r a t e i n d i ffe r e n c e t o a t e a c h e r ' s s e x u a lh a r a s s m e n t o f a s tu d e n t ) ; D a v i s v . M o n r o e 13 C ounty Board of Education , 526 U.S. 6 29, 643 (1999) (Ti tl e IX' s pri v a t e ri ght of acti o n 14 a l l ows sui t for a school ' s del iberate i ndi fference to a student' s sexual harassment of 15 a nother student).

411 In J a ckson v. Birmingham Board o f Education , 5 4 4 U.S. 167 (2005), the 2 Supreme Court hel d that a physi c al educati o n teacher a nd coach of the gi rl s' 3 basketbal l team had a ri ght to bri ng sui t under Ti tl e IX to cl ai m that he was fi red i n 4 retal i a t i on for com p l ai ni ng that there was gender di scri m i nati on i n the school ' s 5 a th l e t i cp r o g r a m . Th e f o c u s b yth i s t i m e w a s n o t o n w h e th e ro r n o t

T i t l e I Xa ff o r d e d 6 a pri vate ri ght of acti on to an empl oyee--a r i g h t t h e Jackson C ourt noted had been 7 e s t ab l i s h e d b y C a n n o n m ore than a quarter-century earl i er, see i d
. a t 1 73 . R a th e r, th e 8 i s s u e s w e r e wh e t h e rr e t a l i a ti o n

i s afo r mo f d i s c r i m in a ti o n p r o h i b i te db yT i tl e I X

, an d, 9 i f so, whether the pri vate ri ght of acti on under T i tl e IX e x te n d s to an "i ndi rect 10 v i ct i [ m ] , " i .e. , a pl ai nti ff who had compl ai ned about gender d i scri mi nati on but was 11 n o t

t h e p e r s o n

d i s c r i m in a te d a g a in s t o n t h e b a s i so f

g e n d e r . N o t in gth a t i t s " r e p e a t e d 12 hol di ngs constru[ed] ' di scri mi nati on' under Ti tl e IX broadl y, " id
. at 174; see id
. 13 a t 174-79, the Jackson Co u r t h el d that " [w]here the retal i a ti on occurs because the 14 c o m p l a in an t

s p e a k s o u t

a b o u t s e x d i s c r i m in a ti o n

, t h e ' o nth e b a s i s o f

s e x ' r e q u i r e m e n t 15 i s sati sfi ed. Th e c o m p l a i nant i s hi msel f a vi cti m of di scri mi natory retal i a ti on, 16 regardl ess of whether he was the subject of the ori gi nal compl a i nt," id
. at 179.

421 M o s t o f o u r S i s t e r C i r c u i t s th a t

h a v e c o n s i d e r e dt

h e q u e s ti o n o f wh e th e r 2 an

e m p l o y e e h a s an i m p l i e d p r i v a t e r i gh t o f a c t i o nu n d e rT i t l e I X h a v e an s w e r e dt h a t 3 questi on i n the affi rmati v e and h a v e n o t e d th e a p p l i c ab i l i tyo f T i t l e V I Ip r i nci pl es i n 4 a ddressi ng procedural and overl appi ng s ub s tanti ve i ssues. S ee, e.g. , Doe v. Mercy 5 Ca t h o l i cM e d i c a l C e n t e r , 8 5 0 F . 3 d 5 4 5 , 5 5 9
- 6 5 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 1 7 ) ( " M e r c y " ) ; I v a n v . K e n t S t a t e 6 U

n i v e rs i t y , N o . 9 4
- 4 0 9 0 , 1 9 9 6 W L 4 2 2 4 9 6 ( 6 thC i r . J u l y26, 1996); Preston v. Virginia ex 7 re l . N

e w R i v e r C o m m u n i t

y C o l l e g e, 3 1 F . 3d 203, 206 (4th C i r. 1994); L ipsett v. Un i v e rs i t y 8 o f Puerto Rico , 864 F.2d 8 8 1 , 8 9 5
- 9 7 ( 1 s t C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) ; contra Lakoski v. James , 66 F.3d 751, 9 7 58 ( 5 t h C i r. 1995) ("We are not persuaded that C ongress offered Ti tl e IX t o 10 empl oyees of federal l y funded educati onal i nsti tuti ons so a s to provi de a bypass to 11 T i t l e VII' s admi ni strati ve procedures."). 12 In Mercy, the most recent of these cases, havi ng the benefi t of al l of the 13 Su p r e m e C o u r t d e c i s i o n s d i s cu s s e d a

b o v e, t h e Th i r dC i r cu i t

r e v e r s e d t

h e ru l in g o f t h e 14 d i stri c t court whi ch had concl uded that T i t l e IX coul d not appl y to a hospi tal ' s 15 m edi cal res i d e n t s , a s th e y" a l r e a d y h a v e a d e g r e e , d o n ' t p a ytu i t i o n

, a n d a r e p a i d for

431 thei r servi ces and protected by l ab or l aws." 850 F.3d at 554. The C ourt of Appeal s 2 noted, inter alia , that 3 [b]ecause § 168 1 ( a ) "nei ther expressl y nor i mpl i edl y excl udes 4 empl oyees from i ts reach," we' r e t o i nterpret i t as "coveri ng and 5 protecti ng these ' persons,' " fo r C ongress easi l y c oul d have 6 s u

b s ti t u te d " ' s t u d e n t ' o r' b e n e fi c i a r y ' f o r th e w o r d ' p e r s o n ' i f i t h a d 7 wi shed to restri ct" § 1681(a)' s scope, 8 i d . at 562 (qu oti ng North Haven , 456 U.S. at 521). 9 We agree w i th M e r c yth a t g i v e n th e S u p reme C ourt' s Ti tl e IX rul i ngs i n 10 Ca n n o n a n d N

o r t h H a v e n , w e m u s t

h o n o r th e b r e a d tho f

T i tl e I X ' s l a n gu a g e . W e thu s 11 h o l d t

h a t T i tl e I Xa l l o w sap r i v a t e r i gh t o f a c t i o nf o r a u n i v e r s i ty ' s i n t e n t i o n a lg e n d e r 12 b a s e d d i s c r i m in a t i o na g a i n s t a f a c u l tym e mb e r, a n d th a t V e n g a l a t t o r e ' s T i tl e I Xc l a i m 13 shoul d not have been di smi ssed o n the ground that he c o m p l a i ned of such 14 d i scr i mi nati on wi th respect to empl oyment. And as to the i ssue of whether 15 V e n g a l a t t o r e w a s s ubj e c t e d t o " t h e i m p o s i ti o n

o f u n i v e r s i tyd i s c i p l i n e " b e c a u s e o f h i s 16 g e nder, Doe v. Columbia , 831 F.3d at 56, we wi l l hol d, i n kee p i n gw i th I q b a l , M e n a ke r

, 17 L ittlejohn , and Doe v. Columbia , that hi s pl eadi ng i s "suffi ci ent wi th respect to the 18 e l e m e nt of d i s c r i m i n a t o r yi n t e n t , l i k e a c o m p l a i n t

u n d e rT i t l e V I I, i f

i t p l e a d s s p e c i fi c

441 f acts that support a mi ni mal pl au s i b l e i nference of such di scri mi nati on," Doe v. 2 C olumbia , 831 F.3d at 56. 3 I n Doe v. Columbia , we vaca t e d th e Ru l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d i s m i s s a lo f a s tu d e n t ' s 4 T i t l e IX cl ai m that hi s uni versi ty had di sci pl i ned hi m as a resul t of f al se al l egati ons 5 t h a t h e h a d s e x u a l l ya s s a u l t e d a fe m a l e s t u d e n t . Th e c o m p l a in t

a l l e g e d, i n te r

a l i a, t h a t 6 Doe i nformed the i nvesti gator that hi s encounter wi th t h e a c c user had been 7 c onsensual and that th e r e were wi tnesses who coul d support hi s cl ai m; that the 8 i nvesti gator, i n a n atmosphere o f publ i c pressure on the uni versi ty to react more 9 s w i ftlyan d s e v e r e l yt o s e x u a lm i s c o n d u c t c l a i m s b yfe m a l e s a g a in s t m a l e s, h a d f a i l e d 10 t o f o l l o w u p wi th regard t o Doe' s proposed wi tnesses i n any w ay; and that the 11 uni versi ty had fai l ed to i nform hi m of many of the ri ghts t o whi ch an ac c u s e d w a s 12 e n t i t l ed under uni versi ty procedures. See 831 F.3d at 49

- 5 2 . I n M e n a ke r , w e v a c a t e d 13 t

h e Ru l e 1 2 ( b )(6) di smi ssal of a gender di scri mi nati on cl a i m brough t u n d e r T i t l e V I I 14 b yate n

n i s c o a c h a l l e g in g

th a t h e h a d b e e nfi r e d b y h i s f o r m e r u n i v e r s i t y in r e s p o n s e 15 t o a femal e student' s basel ess accusati on of sexual har a s s m e n t . Hi s compl ai nt, l i ke 16 that i n Doe v. Columbia , al l eged that hi s uni versi ty had faced publ i c and i nternal

451 c ri ti ci sm for i t s handl i ng of cl ai ms of mal e sexual mi sconduct, see Menaker, 935 F.3d 2 a t 26 (referri ng to the "now-famous ' Dear C ol l ea g u e ' l etter t o col l eges and 3 un i v e r s i t i e s " ) ; th a t th e u n i v e r s i tyh a d f a i l e d t o in t e r v i e wr e l e v an t w i t n e s s e s wh o mh e 4 had brought to the i nvesti gators' attenti on; and that i t had di sreg a r d ed the 5 procedures set out i n i t s own wri tten pol i ci es. See id . at 26-29. 6 Our deci si ons i n these two cases make c l ear that where a compl ai nt 7 c l a i m i n gg e n d e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o ni nv i o l a t i o no f T i tl e IX or Ti tl e VII al l eg e s ( a ) th a t th e 8 u ni versi ty "fai l [ed] t o act i n accordance wi th [ u ] ni versi ty procedures desi gned t o 9 protect a c cused students," (b) that the u ni versi ty "fai l [ed] to seek out potenti al 10 w i tnesses [whom the accused] had i denti fi ed as so u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o nfavorabl e to 11 [ th e a c c u s e d ] , " ( c ) th a t th e d e fe n d a n t

u n i versi ty had been cri ti ci z ed for not seri o u s l y 12 a d d r e s s in g

c o m p l a int sb y

f e m a l es t u d e n t s o f s e x u a lm i s c o n d u c t

b y m a l e s, an d ( d ) t

h a t 13 the uni versi ty made fi ndi n g s agai nst the a ccused m al e that were " i ncorrect and 14 c ontrary to the wei ght of the evi dence," we have found i t "pl ausibl e t h at the 15 u ni versi ty was moti vated to ' favor the accusi ng femal e over the accused m a l e' i n 16 o r d e r t o d e m o n s t r a t e i t s c o m m i t m e n t t o p r o t e c t i n g

fe m a l e s t

u d e nt s fr o mm a l es e x u a l

461 a s s a i l a n t s . " M e n a ke r , 9 3 5 F . 3 d a t

31-32 (quoti ng D o ev . C o l u m b i a , 8 3 1 F . 3 d a t 5 7 ( o th e r 2 i nternal quota t i o nm a r k s o mi tted)). Gi ven that "procedural i rregul ari ty al one" may 3 suggest some form of bi as, when there are "cl ear procedural i rregul ari ti es i n a 4 u ni versi ty' s response to al l egati ons of sexual mi sconduct" we have co n c l u d e d that 5 " even mi ni mal evi dence of sex-based pressure on the u ni versi ty i s s u f f i c i ent" t o 6 p e r m i t

ap l a u s i b l e in fe r e n c et

h a t t h e " b i a s [ w a s ] o n

a c c o u n t o f s e x . " M e n a ke r

, 9 3 5 F . 3 d 7 a t 33 & n.48. 8 Th e f a c t sa l l e g e d inth e C o m p l a i n t h e r e , t a k e na s t r u e a s th e ym u s t b e i n 9 a ssessi ng a Rul e 12(b)(6) moti on, easi l y meet thi s pl ausibi l i ty standard wi th respect 10 t o Vengal attore' s cl ai m under Ti t l e IX. To begi n w i th, a s s e t o u t i n greater detai l i n 11 P a r t

I . C. abov e , th e p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d b yC o r n e l li n d e a l i n gw i thR o e ' s a l l e g a t i o n s 12 w e r e f

u n d a m e n t a l l ys k e w e d
. F i r s t , P o l i c y6 . 4, a d o pted by C ornel l i n 2012, p r o v i d e d 13 e x p l i c i t

ti m e l i m i t s fo r as t

u d e n t ' s c l a i m

o f s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t

b ya s u p e r v i s o ry f a cu l t y 14 m e m

b e r ; an d wh e n

th e i nv e s t i g a t o r s i n f o r m e d D e a nR i t te rt h a t R o e ' s c l a i mw a s ti m e 15 barred under Pol i cy 6 .4, Dean Ri tter i nstructed th e m to proceed i nstead under 16 C o rn e l l ' s R o m an c e P o l i cy . H o w e v e r, th e F a c u l tyH a n d b o o k p l a c e d a l l e g e d v i o l a ti o n s

471 o f

th e Romance Pol i cy excl usi vel y wi thi n the juri sdi c t i o no f C o r n e l l ' s C o m m i t t e e o n 2 P r o fe s s i on a l S t a t u s, af a cu l t

yc o m m i tte e . M i ttm an

, D i r e c t o ro f

t h e O ff i c e o f W o r k fo r c e 3 P ol i cy and Labor Rel ati o n s , a nd Affel , the Ti tl e IX Offi ce coordi nator, l acked 4 j uri sdi cti on to i nvesti gate Roe' s al l egati ons of vi ol ati o n of the Romance Pol i cy. 5 S e c o n d , th e F a c u l tyH a n db o o kp r o v i d e d th a t i n v e s t i g a ti o n s in t o a l l e g e d 6 v i ol ati ons of the Romance Pol i cy "' must comport wi th the basi c precepts of due 7 p r o c e ss.' (emphasi s i n ori gi nal )." (C ompl ai nt ¶ 180.) Instead, the i nvesti gators 8 s u m m o n e d V e n g a l a t t o r e t o r e s p o n d t o R o e ' s a l l e g a ti o n s o no n e d a y ' s n o t i c e , w i th o u t 9 a wri tten st a tement of the charges or i denti fi cati on of the compl ai nant; they 10 in te r v i e w e d h i m fo rs e v e r a l h o u r sb e fo r e t

h e y r e v e a l e dt

h a t R o e w a s a c cu s in g

h i mn o t 11 j u s t

o f a c o n s e n s u a lr e l a t i o n s h i p b u t a l s o of rape; and when Ve n g a l a t t o r e th e na s k e d 12 t o have assi stance of counsel i n response to heari ng the rape accusati on f o r the fi rst 13 t i me, they deni ed hi s req uest and conti nued thei r questi oni ng. 14 Th i r d, n o tw i t h s t an d i n gth e i n a p p l i c ab i l i tyo f P o l i c y6 . 4

, t h e inv e s ti g a t o r s 15 f o l l o w e d s o m e o f i t s p r o c e d u r e s th a t

l e s s e n e d p r o t ecti ons f o r th e p e r s o na c c u s e d
. I n 16 parti cul ar, the i nvesti gato rs, i n thei r Report to Dean Ri tter, stated that the

481 p r e p o n d e r a n c e - o f

- th e - e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f w a s t o b e a p p l i e d by i nve s t i g a t o r s 2 a nd the dean, but that nei ther party has a burden of proof. 3 Further, as descri bed i n Part I . C . 1 . , t he C ompl a i nt al l eged that the 4 in v e s t i g a t o r s r e

j e c t e d nu m e r o u s r e q

u e s t s b yV e n g a l a t t o r e th a t th e yi n t e r v i e w c e r t a i n 5 w i tnesses or a sk certai n ques t i o n s that coul d have produced i nformati o n favorabl e 6 t o hi m. It l i sted 1 0 persons whom the i nvesti gators di d not i ntervi ew, i n c lu d i ng 7 Shaffer-Moag who, whi l e the Mi ttman-Affel i nvest i gati on was o ngoi ng, gave the 8 U ni v ersi ty' s t enure appeal s commi ttee fi rst-han d e v i d e nce that Roe had both 9 procl a i med and exhi bi ted bi as agai n s t m e n, evi dence the c o mmi ttee ci ted i n i ts 10 d eci si on favorabl e to Vengal attore. That evi dence was notp a r t o f th e i nv e s t i g ators' 11 R eport. 12 I na d d i t i o n , th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s d e c l i n e d t o e x p l o r e c e r t a i ns t a t e m e n t s R o e 13 m a d e i n 2 0 10-2011 about her rel ati onshi ps wi th other men, whi ch c a s t d o ub t o n h e r 14 c l a i mt o h a v e b e e ni n a sexual rel a ti onshi p wi th Vengal a ttore. F o r e x a m p l e , a r o u n d 15 the e n d o f D e cember 2010 Roe tol d a fri end that after her rel ati onshi p wi th fel l ow 16 student Mohammad Hami di an ended i n November 2010, she attempted to reuni te 17 w i th another for m e rb o y f r i e n d ( s e e C ompl ai nt ¶ 249); and she tol d the i nvesti gators 491 that at about that ti me she had s t a r t e d t o see her hi gh school boyfri end on some 2 w e e k e n d s . Th e i nv e s t i g a t o r s , d e s p i t e r equ ests by Vengal attore, di d not s e e kf u r th e r 3 i nformati o nab o u t s u c ho th e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . ( S e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 3 56-357, 515, 597.) Si mi l arl y, 4 o n December 30, 2010, Roe sent an emai l to Shannon Harvey, a student assi stant i n 5 V engal attore' s l ab f rom January to A ugust 2 010 w ho h a d b e c ome and remai ned a 6 c l o s e f r i e n d o f

R o e ; th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n t e r p r e t e d th e e m a i la s i n d i c a t i n g th a t R o e h a d 7 ju s t entered i nto a romanti c rel ati onshi p. But w hen they i ntervi ewed Harvey, they 8 a s k e dn o q

u e s ti o n sr e l a tin g

t o t h a t e m a i l
. ( S e e i d
. ¶ ¶ 4 9 2, 5 9 2 . ) Th e C o m p l a in t a l l e g e d 9 t h a t in s te a d o f

a s k in g H a r v e ywh e t

h e rR o e d i s c l o s e d w i t

h wh o ms h e h a d j u s t

b e c o m e 10 inv o lv e d

- - an d in d e e d i n s t e a d o f o bj e c t i v e l ys e e k in ga nyi n f o r m a t i o n a s t o t h e s u c c e s s 11 o f Roe' s admi t ted attempts to reuni te w i t h p a st partners--the i nvesti gators onl y 12 " asked Dr. Vengal attore who Roe had sex wi th, i f not hi m" ( id . ¶ 443). 13 Nor d i d the i nves t i g a t o r s fol l ow u p on evi dence they recei ved from 14 Hami di an that more di rectl y cast doubt on Roe' s cl ai med re l a t i onshi p wi th 15 V engal attore. Ha m i d i a nt o l d th e mo f a c o n versati on he had wi th Roe i n earl y 2011, 16 n o t i n g

th a t i t w a s d u r i n gth e p e r i o d s h e c l a i m e d t o h a v e b e e n in as e x u a lr e l a t i o n s h i p

501 w i th Vengal attor e . I nth a t c o n v e r s a t i o n

, R o e i n d i c a t e d th a t s h e h a d n o t e ntered i nto 2 a ny new rel ati onshi p. The i nvesti gators nei ther asked R oe about that c onversati o n 3 nor m enti oned thi s part of thei r i ntervi ew of Hami d i a n i n t h e i r Report. ( See 4 Compl ai nt ¶¶ 412-416.) 5 The accuracy o f t he i nvesti gators' recommended fi ndi ng that 6 V eng a l a t t o r e h a d a s e x u a l r e l ati onshi p wi th Roe--and of Dean Ri t ter' s acceptance of 7 that recommendati on--i s pl ausibl y cal l ed i nto q u e s ti o n not onl y i n l i ght of the 8 inv e s ti g a t o r s ' r e

j e c ti o n s o f

V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s r e q

u e s t s t o p u r s u e e v i d e n c e th a t c o u l d h a v e 9 supported hi s deni al of a s e x u a lr e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h R o e , b u t a l s o i n l i g ht of rati onal es 10 proffered by the i nvesti gators for certai n concl usi ons. For exampl e , t h e Report 11 " determ i n e d that t he lack of evidence supporti ng a year-l ong romanti c rel ati onshi p 12 a ctually supported R oe's allegations " that such a rel ati onshi p exi sted, reasoni ng that 13 " ' [ c]ommon sens e e x p eri ence i s that secreti ve rel ati onshi ps carri ed out by facul ty 14 m e m

b e r s an d s t

u d e nt s c a n b e

c a r r i e d o u t

w i t h o u t o t h e r s, in c lu d in g

o t h e r s t u d e nt s an d 15 c ol l eagues, becomi ng a w a r e . ' " ( C o m p l a i n t ¶ 6 1 6 ( q u o t i n g R e p o r t

( e m p h a s e s o u r s ) ) . ) 16 A l though the l ack of such evi dence coul d support a cl ai m of secrecy, the l a ck o f

511 e v i d e n c e th a t a r e l a t i o nshi p exi sted does not support the proposi ti on that i t exi st e d
. 2 T esti moni al evi dence on both si des l eaves i ssues of credi bi l i ty; but the absence o f 3 o ther evi dence does not wei gh on the exi stence si de of the preponderance scal e. 4 I ns u m, th e C o m p l a i nt ' sf a c t u a la l l e g a ti o n s a s t o C o r n e l l ' s ( a ) u s i n gp a r t s 5 o f

ap o l i cyt

h a t w a s k n o wn t ob e in a p p l i c ab l e , ( b ) p u r p o r t i n gt o u s e a d i ffe r e n t p o l i cy 6 w hi l e di sregardi ng both the enti ty that had exc l u s i v e juri sdi cti on and that pol i cy' s 7 m a n d a t e f o rc onsi stency wi th due proces s , ( c ) a v o i d i n gi n q u i r i e s th a t

m i gh t s u p p o r t 8 V engal attore' s deni a l of a sexual r e l a t i onshi p wi th Roe, and (d) choosi ng to bel i eve 9 that the very l ack of evi dence of such a rel ati onshi p' s exi stence was evi dence that i t 10 e x i s te d, m a d e i t p l a u s ib l e th a t

th e o u t c o m e o f

th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n w a s th e r e s u l t o f b i a s . 11 Th e a l l e g a t i o nth a t th a t b i a s w a s b a s e d o ng e n d e r i s p l a u s ib l e i n l i ght o f 12 a ddi ti onal f a ctual al l egati ons descri be d i n Part I.D. above, i ncl u di ng DoE' s Ti tl e IX 13 Gu i d an c e a d v i s in g s ch o o l s t o " p r e v e n t

u nw e l c o m es e x u a la d v an c e s b y f a cu l t yt o w a r d 14 students" (C ompl a i nt ¶ 31) an d warni ng that noncompl i ance coul d resul t i n l oss o f 15 fe d e r a lf

u n d i n g( s e e i d
. ¶ 4 8 ) ; D o E ' s p u b l i c a ti o n o f

al i s t o f s ch o o l s s u s p e c t e d o f

f a i l i n g 16 t o a d o p t

p r o m p t an d e q u i t ab l e s e x u a lm i s c o n d u c t g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s ( s e e i d
. ¶ 6 1 ) ;

521 i ts addi ti on of C ornel l to that l i s t ( s e e i d
. ¶ 65); and Mi ttman' s statement to "Roe that 2 Cornel l was worki ng ' very aggressi vel y to address i ssues of access, preventi on and 3 c ul ture change' ' under Ti tl e IX.' " ( I d . ¶ 335.) 4 G i v e n t h i s c o n te x t

, t h e C o m p l ai

nt p l au s i b ly a l l e ge d t

h a t t h e b i a s in fe r a

b l e 5 f rom the procedural i rregul ari ti es i n the processi ng o f R oe' s cl ai ms a gai nst 6 V engal attore was bi as on the basi s of g e n der. We concl ude that Vengal attore' s 7 T i t l e IX cl ai m was not di smi ssi bl e for fai l ure to state a cl a i m.

8 D. Vengalattore's Title VI Claim 9 Al though the C ompl a in t presented a pl ausibl e cl a i m of di scri mi nati o n 10 o n the basi s of ge n d e r , i t di d not state suffi ci ent f acts to render i t pl ausibl e that 11 Cornel l ' s di sci pl i ni ng of V e n g a l a t t o r e w a s a l s o m o t i v a t e d , i n v i o l a t i o no f T i t l e V I, by 12 th e f act that he was Indi an. The deci si onmaker wi th regard to both the deni a l o f 13 t enure and the i mposi ti on o f d i s c i pl i ne was Dean Ri tter. Whi l e at one poi nt the 14 C o m p l a i n t

d e s c r ib e d D e a nR i t t e r a s m e r e l ymaki ng a "recommendati on " th a t t e nu r e 15 b e d e n i e d( C o m p l a int ¶ 3 3 7 ) , i t p l a in lych a r a c t e r i z e d h e r a s th e p e r s o n w h o m a d e th e

531 t enure deci si on ( see id . ¶ 321 (the P hy s i c s f a c u l ty r e c o m m e n d a t i o nth a t V e n g a l attore 2 b e g r an te d te nu r e" w a s fo r w a r d e d t o G r e t ch e n Ri tte r , D e an o f th e C o l l e g e o f

A r t s an d 3 Sci ences, for h e r fin a ld e t e r m i n a t i o n " ) ; i d
. ¶ 3 4 2 ( " [ o ] nF e b r u a r y1 3 , 2 0 1 5 , D ean Ri tter 4 o verrul e d t h e ori gi nal facul ty vote a nd deni ed Dr. Vengal attore' s promoti on t o 5 t e nu r e d p r o fe s s o r " ) ; i d
. ¶ 6 2 8 ( " [ o ] n F eb ru a ry1 6, 2 0 1 6, D e an Ri t t e r f o r m a l l yo v e r r u l e d 6 thi s newest recommendati on and agai n deni ed D r . Vengal attore tenure"); id
. ¶ 631 7 ( the provost "uphel d Dean Ri tter' s deni al of tenure")). 8 A s t o d i s c i p l in e, t h e C o m p l a in t

l i k e w i s e a l l e g e d t

h a t D e a nR i t t e r w a s th e 9 d eci si onmaker. T hus, i n her Oc t o b e r 2 0 1 5 deci si on fi ndi ng that Vengal attore had 10 e n g a g e d i n sexual m i sconduct and had l i ed about i t, Dean Ri tter stated that "sh e 11 ' in te n d [ e d ] t o i m p o s e s i gn i f i c an t ' "
- - a l b e i t d e l a y e d

- - " ' s a n c t i o n s ' " ( i d
. ¶ 6 2 3 ) ; in F eb ru a ry 12 2 01 7 s h e " i nform[ed] Dr. V engal attore . . . that ' i t [wa]s ti me to fol l ow through o [n] 13 [ her ] e a r l i er commi tment to i mpose a ddi ti onal sancti ons,' based on her October 6, 14 2 015 fi ndi ngs" ( id
. ¶ 637); and ul ti m a t e l y, " Dean R i tter i mposed [the] sancti on" 15 ( id . ¶ 638).

541 The C ompl ai nt di d not a l l e ge that Dean Ri tter harbored any nati onal 2 o ri gi n bi as. And notwi t h s t a n d i ng i ts reference to two persons who commented o n 3 V e n g a l a t t o r e ' s e thn i c i ty - - R o e a n d P r o fe s s o r C l a nc y - - th e C o m p l a i n t d i d n o t p l a u s ib l y 4 a l l eg e t h a t D e a n Ri t ter was i nfl uenced by those statements or that the ethni c vi ews 5 o f ei ther R oe or C l a n c y p l a y e d a m eani ngful rol e i n her d eci si ons. As to Roe' s 6 " i nappropri ate raci al comments" about Vengal attore and some of hi s a ssi stants as 7 " Indi ans" (C ompl ai nt ¶ 409), there i s n o i ndi cati on that Dean Ri tter was aware o f 8 th e m . Though Roe' s statements woul d have o ccurred i n or before 2012, t h e 9 Compl ai nt al l eged that the i nvesti gators l earned of them when Af f e l i n tervi ewed 10 V engal attore' s l a b a s s i stant Pati l
. Pati l was i ntervi ewed o n March 20, 2015 ( see 11 i d
. ¶¶ 401, 409); Dean Ri tter had "deni ed Dr. Vengal attore' s promoti on to tenured 12 professor" fi ve weeks e arl i er, "[o]n February 13, 2015" ( i d
. ¶ 3 42). And whi l e Dean 13 Ri tte rh a d n o t y e t d e l i v e r e d h e r d e c i s i o n

t o d i s c i p l i

neV e n g a l a tt o r e, t

h e C o m p l a in t

d i d 14 not suggest that the i nvest i g ators, after l earni ng i n M arch 2 015 of Roe' s raci al 15 c omme n t s , c o n v e y e d that i nformati on to Dean Ri tter; rather, the C ompl ai nt al l eged 16 that the i nvest ig a t ors "[i ]gnor[ed]" that i nformati o n ( id
. ¶ 693(g)(i )). In sum, the

551 Compl ai nt provi des no basi s for a pl ausibl e i nference that R o e' s suppos e d bi as 2 a g a in s t Indi ans woul d i n any w ay have been a factor i n Dean Ri tter' s deci si on to 3 d i sci pl i ne Vengal attore. 4 Th e C o m p l a i nt a l s o p o int s t o t

h e s t a te m e n t

o f P r o fe s s o r

C l an cyo p p o s in g 5 t e nu r e f o r V e n gal attore and sur m i s i n g th a t h i s h a r s ht r e a t m e n t

o f h i s l ab a s s i s t a n t s - - 6 a n d thei r tol erance for abuse--coul d be ascri bed to an "Indi an subconti nen t . . . 7 c ul ture" ( id
. ¶ 339). Whi l e i ti s i nferabl e that Professor C l ancy' s statement was read 8 b yD e an

Ri tte r , g iv e n t h a t i t w a s p a r t o f th e F A C T A c o m m i t t e e r e p o r t , th e C o m p l a i n t 9 pro v i d e s n o s u p p o r t f o r th e a r gu m e n t - - a d v a n c e d i n Vengal attore' s bri ef on appeal

-- 10 that "[t]he fact that Dean Ritter followed ther e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f P ro f e s s o r C l a n cywi thout 11 c o m m e n t

r a i s e s a t l e a s t

a' m i n i m a l ' i n fe r e n c e t

h a t s h e s h a r e d P r o fe s s o rC l an cy ' sv i e w s 12 about those ' from the Indi an subconti nent' " ( Vengal attore bri ef on appeal a t 42 13 ( e m p h a s e s a d d e d ) ) . Th e C o m p l a in t i t s e l f d o e s n o t s u g g e s t - - e v e no ni n f o r m a t i o na n d 14 b e l i e f

- - th a t

D e a nR i t t e r " f o l l o w e d " th e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of Professor C l a n c y, a n d th e 15 f a c t u al a l l egati ons i n the C ompl ai nt i ndi cate o therwi se. Fi rst, C l ancy wrote her 16 q

u o te d s t a te m e n t

a s am e mb e r o f

F A C T A, at e nu r e r e v i e w c o m m i tte e, an d t

h e r e i s n o

561 a l l e g a t i o nth a t th a t c o m m i t t e e w a s a l so to consi der di s c i p l i n e . S e c o n d , F A C T A " w a s 2 c onvened" " [f]ollowing Dean R i tter' s recommend a t i o n " that tenure be deni ed. 3 ( C ompl ai nt ¶ 337 (emphasi s a dded).) Her "recommend a t i o n " coul d not have 4 f ol l owed a statement that had not yet been made. 5 A st o d i s c i p l i ne, a l t h o u g h t h e C o m p l a in t

c o n t a in s ac o n c lu s o rya l l e g a ti o n 6 t h a t C l an cyw r o t e h e r c o m m e n t " b e f o r e th e P o l i c y6 . 4 i n v e s t i g a t i o nh a d c o m m e n c e d " 7 ( C ompl ai nt ¶ 6 9 3(b)), the more detai l ed al l eg a ti ons i n the Compl ai nt bel i e that 8 sequen c e a s w e l l
. M i ttman had been contacted about Roe' s al l egati ons as earl y as 9 Septe m b e r 2 4 , 2014 ( see id
. ¶¶ 324-326), a date on whi ch Dean Ri tter had "formed a 10 f acul ty commi ttee to make a recommendati on regardi ng a fi nal tenure dec i si on" on 11 the Physi c s Department' s t enure recommend a ti on ( id
. at 323 ( emphasi s added); see 12 i d
. ¶¶ 320-321). Mi t tman had a seri es of communi cati ons wi th Roe ( see id
. ¶¶ 327, 13 3 3 2), whi ch he shared wi th Dean Ri tter "pendi ng her revi ew of t h e t e n u r e 14 rec o m m e n d a t i o n " ( id
. ¶ 333). FAC TA was not the commi ttee formed on September 15 2 4, b ut rather w as, as the C ompl ai nt emphasi zed, "yet another facul ty commi ttee" 16 ( i d
. ¶ 3 3 7 ) ; an d, a s d i s cu s s e d a b o v e, F A C T Aw a s n o t c o n v e n e d u n t i la ft e r D e a nR i t t e r

571 had concl uded that tenure shoul d be deni ed. T hus, M i ttman' s i nvesti gati on, wi th 2 D e an

Ri tte rk e p t

in fo r m e db e fo r e s h e r e a ch e d t h a t c o n c lu s i o n

, w a s o n g o i

n g b e fo r e t h e 3 F AC TA report--wi th C l ancy' s statement--exi sted. 4 Al though the C ompl ai nt al so repeatedl y al l eged t h a t "C ornel l " or the 5 " i nvesti gators" themsel ves took, or decl i ned to take, vari ous a cti ons "because of" or 6 " on the basi s of [Vengal attore' s] race, col or [ an d / ] o r n ati onal ori g i n" ( see, e.g. , 7 Com p l a i n t ¶¶ 686, 690, 691, 693(a) and (g)), i t ascri bed that moti vati on to them 8 w i th o u t

a s s e r t i n ga ny f a c t s t o s h o wi t s p l a u s ib i l i ty . F o r e x a m pl e, whi l e al l egi ng th a t 9 the i nvesti gators fai l ed to i n t e r v i e w1 0 p e r s o n s i d e n t i fi e d b yV e n g a l a t t ore as havi ng 10 v a l u ab l e e v i d e n c e ( s e e i d
. ¶ 5 8 4 ) , th e C o m p l a i n tdoes n o t s p e c i f yth e i r n a t i o n a lo r i g i n 11 o r sugges t

th a t a l l or even most of them were Indi an. The C ompl ai nt concedes that 12 the i nvesti gators spoke wi th a number of I ndi an wi tnesses; and a cco r d i n g t o the 13 M i ttman-Affel Report' s chronol ogi cal l i st of the t wo dozen wi tnesses i ntervi ewed, 14 a ft e r th e i n v e s t i g a t o r s s p o k e t o P r o fe s s o r P a t t e r s o n , P a t i la n d C h a k r a mw e r e th e fi r s t 15 w i tnesses the yi ntervi ewed. Al though the C ompl ai nt al l eged that the i nvesti gators 16 g ave " i nadequate w ei ght to the t e s ti m ony of" Pati l, C hakram, and three others

581 " because the i nvesti gators perc e iv ed that these wi tness were Indi an," (C ompl ai nt 2 ¶ 6 9 3 ( g ) ( v i i ) ) , th a t a s s e r t i o n

, ab s e n t s u p p o r t i n gf a c tu a la l l e g a t i o n s , i s s p e c u l a t i v e a n d 3 c oncl usory. 4 F i n a l l y, w e c a nn o t c oncl ude that Vengal attore' s c l a i mo f n a t i o n a lo r i g i n 5 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was made pl ausibl e by the al l e g a t i o nth a t i n F e b r u a r y2 0 1 6 P r o fe s s o r 6 T e u k o l s ky

, t h e n - in te r i mch a i ro f

t h e Ph y s i c s D e p a r tm e n t

, s a i d t h a t t h e f a cu l t y , t h o u g h 7 b e l i e v in g

R o e ' s a c cu s a ti o n s t o b e f a l s e an d m a l i c i o u s, fe a r e d t h a t Tw i tte rw o u l d b r a n d 8 them "bul l i es " i f t h e y were to take "' acti on agai nst a bl onde, femal e student' " 9 ( C ompl ai nt ¶ 63 0 ) . Th e C ompl a i nt al l eged that thi s conversati on occurred i n the 10 w a k e o f

D e a nR i t t e r' s fi nal deni al of tenure, because Professor Teukol sky" h a d b e e n 11 i nvol ved i n the tenure revi ew process." ( Id
. ¶¶ 628-629.) As i ndi cated above, 12 V e n g a l a t t o r e i s n o t h e r e c h a l l e n g i n gth e d e n i a lo f te nu r e ; an d t

h e C o m p l a in t

c o n t a i n s 13 no al l egati on that Teukol sky--or the Physi cs Depart m e n t f acul ty--was i nvol ved i n 14 d etermi ni ng whether, or to what extent, Vengal attore shoul d be di sci pl i ned. 15 In sum, whi l e the C ompl ai nt i s suffi c i ent to state a pl aus i bl e cl ai m o f 16 d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o nth e b a s i s o f g e n d e r ( s e eP a r t

I I . C . ab o v e ) , i t s fe wf a c tual al l eg a t i o n s

591 c o n c e r n i n g p e r s o n s o f In d i a ne thn i c i ty f a i lt o r e a c he v e nth e m i n i m a l l e v e ln e e d e d t o 2 s u p p o r t

a p l a u s ib l e i n fe r e n c e t

h a t V e n g a l a tt o r e ' s d i s c i p l in e w a s a l s o m o t i v a t e d b yh i s 3 n a ti o n a lo r i g in . Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t e r r in d i s m i s s in g

, f o r f a i lu r et o s t a te ac l a i m , 4 so much of the C ompl a i nt as purported to al l ege di scri mi nati on i n vi ol ati on o f 5 T i t l e VI.

6 E . Vengalattore's Other Claims Against Cornell 7 The C ompl ai n t ' s o th e r fe deral cl ai m agai nst C ornel l was one for deni al 8 o f due process, brought under § 1983. That statute provi des, i n perti nent part, that 9 [e]very person who, under col or of a ny statute, ordi n ance, 10 regul a t i o n , c u s t o m, o r u s a g e , o

f a n yS t a t e . . . s ubj e c t s , o r causes to 11 be subjected, any ci ti zen of the Un i t e d States or o ther person 12 wi thi n the j uri sdi cti on thereof t o the depri vati on of any ri ghts, 13 pri vi l eges, or i mmuni ti es secured by the C onsti tuti o n and l aws, 14 shal l be l i abl e to the party i njured . . . . 15 4 2 U .S.C . § 1983 (emphases added). The di stri ct court di smi ssed the due process 16 c l ai m on the ground that the C ompl a i nt f ai l ed to al l ege suffi ci entl y t h a t C ornel l , a 17 pri vate uni v ersi ty, w as a state actor. Vengal attore a rgues that there i s state acti o n 18 w here "there i s such a cl ose nexus between the State and the chal l enged acti on that 601 seemi ngl y pri vate behavi or may be fai rl y treated as that of the S t a t e i t s e l f , " a n d th at 2 " [ w ] h e th e r

t h e n e x u s b e tw e e n

t h e S t a teo f

N e wY o r k

an d C o rn e l l ' s a d o p t i o no f P o l i c y 3 6 . 4 i s s u ffi c i e n t l y c l o s e t o j u s t i f yd e e m i n gth e l a t t e r ' s t a t e a c t i o n ' i s a fact-bound i ssu e 4 that can onl y be determi ned after d i s c o v ery." (Vengal attore bri ef on appeal at 48 5 ( i nternal q

u o t a t i o nm a rks omi t ted).) Vengal attore' s argument fai l s for two reasons. 6 F i r s t , th e C o m p l a i n t

d e s c ri bed § 1983 a s p r o v i d i n ga c i v i lr i gh t o f a c t i o n 7 t o re d r e s s c o n s t i tu t i o n a ld e p r i v a t i o n s " u n d e rc o l o r o f l a w " ( C o m p l a i n t ¶ 7 0 0 ) , n o t , as 8 t h a t s e c ti o n p r o v i d e s , u n d e r c o l o ro f th e l a w" o f a [ ] S t a te, " 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . Wh i l e t h e 9 C o m p l a in t

a l l e g e d t h a t " C o rn e l lo p e r a te su n d e rN e wY o r k E d u c a ti o n

L a w " ( i d
. ¶ 7 0 2 ) , 10 n o w h e r e d i d i t a l l e g e th a t

C o r n e l l, i nd i s c i p l i n i n gV e n g a l a t t o r e, w a s o p e r a t i n g u n d e r 11 State l aw. Instead, the Compl ai nt devoted nearl y 200 paragraphs to al l egi ng that 12 Cornel l was i n fact c oerced to adopt Pol i cy 6 . 4 by the federal government ( see, e.g. , 13 Compl ai nt ¶¶ 13-81, 703-710)--not by New York State--and asserti ng ni ne c a u s e s o f 14 a c t i o n agai nst the federal defendants on that premi se ( see, e .g. , id
. ¶¶ 7 34-8 4 6 ) . F o r 15 exampl e, havi ng defi ned the Uni ted States Department of Educati on as "ED" 16 ( C ompl ai nt ¶ 8), the C ompl ai nt al l eged:

611 708. Defendan t C ornel l was acting at the behest of Defendant 2 ED when i t appl i ed i ts di sci pl i nar yp r o c e s s a g a i n s t [ P l a i n ti ff] Dr. 3 Vengal a ttore. 4 709. Defendant C ornell was coerced t o d eny Pl ai nti ff Dr. 5 V e n g a l a t t o r e d u e process ri ghts byD e f e n d a n t E D f o r fe a ro f

b e i n g 6 subject to an enforcement acti on. 7 710. Def e ndant C ornel l was thus a cting under c olor of law 8 duri ng i t s i nvesti gati on and di sci pl i ne of Pl ai nti ff Dr. 9 Vengal a ttore. 10 ( C ompl ai n t ¶ ¶ 7 0 8
- 7 1 0 ( e m p h a s es added).) Thus, whi l e the C ompl ai nt al l eged that 11 Cornel l was "acti ng under l aw," that "l aw" was not once al l eged to be State l a w. 12 Sec o n d , i f C o r n e l l were i n fact suffi ci entl y cl ose to New York State that 13 i ts conduct shoul d be deemed "that of the State i tsel f" (Vengal attor e b r i ef on appeal 14 a t 48 (i nternal qu o t a t i o n marks omi tted)), Vengal attore' s due process cl ai m was 15 properl y di smi ssed f or fai l ure to state a cl a i m si mp l y b e c a use a State, havi ng 16 i mmuni ty from sui t under the El eventh A mendment, i s not consi dere d t o b e a 17 " person" suabl e under § 1983. See, e.g. , Howle t tv. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990); Will 18 v . Michigan Department of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

621 Vengal a ttore' s remai ni ng cl ai m agai nst Corne l l , a state-l aw cl ai m for 2 d e f a m a ti o n

, w a s n o t d i s m i s s e d f o ra nyfl a wi nth e p l e a d in g ; r a th e r, th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , 3 h avi ng di smi ssed al l of hi s federal cl ai ms, decl i ned a s a m atter of i ts di screti on to 4 exerci se suppl emental juri sdi cti on. B e c ause the di smi ssal o f Vengal a ttore' s cl ai m 5 u nder Ti t l e IX i s bei ng vacated, we al so v a cate the d ismi ssal of hi s cl a i m for 6 d efamati on.

7 F . Lack of Standing for Claims Against the Federal Defendants 8 Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r anted the federal defendants' m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s th e 9 c l ai ms agai nst them for l ack of Arti cl e III standi ng, fi ndi ng t h e Compl a i nt defi ci ent 10 f or f a i l u r e to al l ege pl ausibl y that there was a causal connecti on between the DoE 11 gu i d a n c e and Ve n g a l a t t o r e ' s i n j u r i e s a n d t

h a t th o s e in j u r i e s w o u l d b e r e d r e s s ab l e b y 12 a judgment agai nst the federal defendants. V engal a t t o r e chal l enges thi s rul i ng, 13 a rgui ng that the court mi sunderstood the nature of hi s i njuri es. 14 T o have Arti c l e III standi ng, (1) the pl ai nti ff must "have suffered a n 15 i njury i n fact," (2) there must be "a causal connec t i o n b e t w een the i njury and the 16 c o n d u c t

c o m p l a i n e d o f

, " a n d ( 3 ) i t mus t b e " l i k e l y, a s o p p o s e d t o m e r e l ys p e c u l a t i v e ,

631 that the i njury wi l l be redressed by a favorabl e deci si on." Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560-6 1 2 ( i nternal quotati on marks omi tted). These are the " i r reduci bl e consti tuti onal 3 m i ni mum" prereq ui si tes for Arti cl e III standi ng, id
. at 560, and thei r sati sfacti o n 4 " d e p e n d s c o n s i d e r a b lyu p o n wh e t h e rt h e p l a in ti f

f i s h i m s e l f an ob

j e c t o f t h e [ c o n d u c t ] 5 . . . at i ssue," i d . at 561. 6 We revi ew a di stri ct court' s di smi ssal for l ack o f s t a n d i ng de novo . See, 7 e .g. , Roth s t e i n , 7 0 8 F . 3 d a t 9 0 . A t th e p l e a d ing stage a pl ai nti ff must "al l ege facts that 8 a ff

i r m a ti v e lyan d p l a u s i

b lys u g g e s t

t h a t [ h e ] h a s s t an d i

n g to s u e, " an d w e a s s u m e t h a t 9 a l l wel l -pl eaded factual al l egati ons i n the compl ai nt are true "unl e s s [ t h ey are] 10 c o n t r a d i c t e d b ym o r e s p e c i f i c a l l e g a t i o n s o rd o c u m e n t a r ye v i d e n c e . " A m i d a x T r a d i n g 11 G roup v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL , 671 F.3d 140, 145 (2d C i r. 2011). 12 In the present case, we concl ude that pl ausibl e al l eg ati o ns o f 13 redressabi l i ty a r e l a cki ng. We agree wi th the di stri ct c ourt' s concl usi on that i t i s 14 i m p l a u s ib l e t o s u g g e s t th a t aj u d g m e n t a g a in s t

th e fe d e r a ld e fe n d a n t s w i thr e g a r d t o 15 the chal l enged Ti tl e IX gui dance woul d provi de Vengal attore wi th an y r e l i ef. 16 V e n g a l a tt o r e h a s a l r e a d y s o u g h t in N e wY o r k

S u p r e m e C o u r t - - an d h a s b e e n d e n i e d

- -

641 e x p u n g e m e n t o f C o rn e l l ' s f

in d i n gth a t

h e h a d e n g a g e d i n

s e x u a lm i s c o n d u c t

an d l i e d 2 about i t . S e e V

engalattore v. Cornell University, No. 2016-119 (N.Y. Sup. C t. Schuyl er 3 C o . , D e c i s i o n an d O r d e r o n M o ti o n , A u gu s t 2 1 , 2 0 1 7 , a t 1
- 2 ) ( n o t i n g

th a t V e n g a l a t t o r e 4 i n hi s Arti c l e 7 8 proceedi ng agai nst C o rnel l requested, inter alia , that C ornel l be 5 o rdered " to spec i f i c a l l y expunge" Dean Ri tter' s "October 6 , 2015 fi ndi ng o f 6 m i sconduct"; concl udi ng that "there was no am bi gui ty i n" the court' s "not granti ng 7 that s peci fi c request for expungement of the fi ndi ng"; and decl i ni ng to modi fy the 8 d e n i a lo f

th e e x p u n g e m e n t

r e q u e s t ) . I t i s e n t i r e lys p e cu l a ti v e t o s u g g e s t th a t C o r n e l l, 9 havi ng twi ce defeated V e n g a l a t tore' s di rect attempts to compel i t to expunge the 10 record of hi s mi sconduct, w oul d choose to expunge that record--or to undo the 11 d i sci pl i ne i m posed--because of a judgment agai nst the federal de fe n d a n t s . A n d w e 12 t

h ink i t e v e n l e s s l i k e ly

t h a t aj u d g m e n t

ru l in g t h a t t h e fe d e r a ld e fe n d ant s v i o l a t e d th e 13 A d m in i s t r a t

iv e P r o c e d u r e A c t

o rt h e S p e n d in g

C l a u s e o f

t h e C o n s ti t

u ti o n w o u l d h a v e 14 a mater i a l effect on Vengal attore' s reputati on. W hi l e i t i s certai nl y possi bl e that 15 reputati onal in j u ri es coul d be suffi c i entl y redressabl e t o sati sfy thi s el ement o f 16 A rti cl e III standi ng, s ee Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 476-77 (1 9 8 7); Gully v. National

651 C redit Union Administrative Board, 341 F.3d 155, 162- 6 3 (2d C i r. 2003), the DoE 2 g ui dance chal l enged by V engal attore s a i d nothi ng about hi s case or the al l egati ons 3 o f

s e x u a lm i s c o n d u c t

r a i s e d a g a in s t

h i m . Th e s u g g e s t i o nth a t a j u d g m e n t

r u l i n gth a t 4 t h e D o E gu i d a n c e w a s i s s u e d u n l a w f u l l yw o ul d remove, even parti al l y, th e s t a i no n 5 V engal attore' s reputati on i s far too specul ati ve to support consti tuti onal standi ng.

6 C ONC LUSION

7 In sum, we concl ude that: 8 (1 ) Ti t l e IX al l ows a pri vate ri ght of acti on for a uni versi ty' s 9 i ntenti onal gender-based di scri mi nati on agai nst a facul ty member. 10 ( 2 ) Th e C o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s s u ffi c i e n t f a c tuala s s e r t i o n s t o p e r m i t 11 a pl ausibl e i nference that Vengal a ttore was di sci pl i ned fol l owi ng 12 i rregul ar i nvesti gati ve procedures i n ci rcumsta n c e s permi tti ng a 13 p l a u s i

b l e i n fe r e n c e o f

b i a s o n the basi s o f

g e n d e r inv i o l a t i o no f

T i t l e I X . 14 (3) Vengal attore' s Ti t l e VI cl ai m, vi e w e d w i thi n the same 15 a nal yti cal fram e w o r k as that appl i c abl e to hi s Ti t l e IX cl ai m, l acks 661 suffi ci ent factua l a sserti o ns to permi t a pl a usibl e i nference that 2 V engal a ttore was di sci pl i ned i n whol e or i n p a r t on the basi s of hi s 3 nati o nal ori gi n i n vi ol ati on of Ti t l e VI. 4 ( 4 ) V e n g al attor e ' s c l a i ma g a i n s t C o r n e l l f o r d e n i a lo f d u e p r o c e s s 5 w a s properl y d i smi ssed for fai l u re to state a cl ai m under 42 U.S.C . 6 § 1983. 7 (5) As to al l egati ons that the Uni ted States Departmen t o f 8 E d u c a t i o na n d i t s S ecretary i ssued admi ni s t r a t i v e gu i d a n c e i nv i o l a t i o n 9 o f the Admi n i s t r a t i ve Procedure Act and the Spendi ng Cl ause of the 10 C o n s t i tu t i o n , V e n g a l a t t ore' s cl ai ms agai nst the fe d e r a ld e fe n d a n t s w e r e 11 properl y di smi ssed for l ack of Arti cl e III standi ng. 12 ( 6 ) A st h e d i s m i s s a lo f

V e n g a l a t t o r e ' sT i tl e I X

c l a i m i sv a c a te d, t

h e 13 d i s c r e t i o n a r yd i s m i s s a lo f h i s state-l a w cl ai m for defamat i o n i s l i k e w i s e 14 v acated. 15 W eh a v e c o n s i d e r e d a l lo f V e n g a l a t t o r e ' s c o n t e nti o n s o n t h i s a p p e a lan d, 16 except to the extent i ndi c a t e d a b o v e , have found them t o be wi thout meri t . The 17 j udgment of the di stri ct court i s vacated to the extent that i t di smi ssed the Ti tl e IX 671 c l ai m a gai nst C ornel l f or fai l ure to state a cl ai m and to the extent that the court 2 d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e s u p p l e m e n t a lj u r i s d i c ti o no v e r V e n g a l a t t o r e ' s s t a t e - l a wc l a i mf o r 3 d efamati on. The mat t e r i s r e m a n d e d f o r d i s c o v e r ya n d s uch further proceedi ngs as 4 m ay be appropri ate. The judgment i s i n al l other respects affi rmed. 5 Each si de shal l bear i ts own costs of thi s appeal
.

681 Vengalattore v. Co rnell Univ. , No. 20

- 1514 J OSÉ A. C ABRANES , Circuit Judge , concurring : I concur in the judgment of the Court and in Judge Kearse’s comprehensive opinion . I pause briefly to comment, in my own name, that, as alleged, this case describes deeply troubling aspects of contemporary university proced ures to adjudicate complaints under Title IX and other closely related statutes . In many instances, these procedures signal a retreat from the foundational principl e of due process, the erosion of which has been accompanied

— to no one’s surprise

— by a decline in modern universities’ protection of the open inquiry and academic freedom that has accounted for the vitality and success of A merican higher education. 1 This growing “law” of university disciplinary procedures, often promulgated in response to the regulatory diktats of government, is controversial and thus far largely beyond the reach of the courts because of, among other thi ngs, the presumed absence of “state action” by so

- called private universities. Thus i nsulated from review, it is no wonder that , in some cases, these procedures have been compared unfavorably to those of the infamous English Star Chamber
. 2 Vengalattore’s allegations, if supported by evidence, provide one such example of the brutish overreach of university administrators at the expense of due process and simple fairness. His allegations, if corroborated, would reveal a grotesque miscarriage of justice at Cornell University. As

1 See generally Richard Hofstadter & Walter P. Metzger, The Development o f Academic Freedom i n the United States (1955) ; and the related volumes Richard Hofstadter, Academic Freedom i n the Age o f the College (1961) and Walter P. Metzger, Academic Freedom i n the Age o f the University (1961). There are, fortunately, some notable exceptions

— principal amongst them the University of Chicago, which in 2015 reaffirmed its “ commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas. ” The Chicago Principles: Report on the Committee on Freedom of Expression, University of Chicago, available at https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf
. 2 See American Association of University Professors, The History, Uses, and Abuses of Title IX (June 2016), at 87, available at https://www.aaup.org/file/TitleIXreport.pdf
.2 alleged, Cornell’s investigation of Vengalattore denied him access to counsel; failed to provide him with a statement of the nature of the accusations against him; denied him the ability to question witnesses; drew adverse inference s from the absence of evidence; and failed to employ an appropriate burden of proof or standard of evidence
. In other cases and other universities the catalogue of offenses can include continuing surveillance and the imposition of double jeopardy for long

- ago grievances. 3 There is no doubt that a llegations of misconduct on university campuses

— sexual or otherwise

— must, of course, be taken seriously; but any actions taken by university officials in response to such allegations must also comport with b asic principles of fairness and due process. The day is surely coming

— and none too soon

— when the Supreme Court will be able to assess the various university procedures that undermine the freedom and fairness of the academy in favor of the politics of grievance. In sum: these threats to due process and academic freedom are matter s of life and death for
our great universities . It is incum bent upon their leaders to reverse the disturbing trend of indifferen ce to these threats, or simpl e immobiliz ation due to fear of internal constituencies of the “v i rtuous” determined to lunge for influence or settle scores against outspoken colleagues
.

3 Elsewhere, I have criticized the “specialized inquisitorial procedures that universities have developed for sexual

- misconduct cases.” José A. Cabranes, For Freedom of Expression, for Due Process, and for Yale: The Emerging Threat to Academic Freedom at a Great University , 35 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 345, 353 (2017). These procedures can deprive the accused of various rights, including the right to a public hearing or the complete record of a private hearing, the right to have counsel speak on the accused’s be half, the right to friendly witnesses, the right to confront and cross

- examine adverse witnesses, and the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Id. at 355 ; see also José A. Cabranes , The New ‘Surveillance University , ’ Washington Post (Jan. 11, 2017) (describing the adoption of university surveillance and reporting regimes which can be used as “ tool [s] for policing the teaching and research of the professoriate ”). Even short of formal discipline, such lack of due process may inflict re putation harm, particularly where rules of “confidentiality” make it effectively impossible for an accused to respond publicly to damaging pronouncements by managers of the university grievance system.