Opinion ID: 4425842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Dispute Over an Athletic Scholarship

Text: On January 15, 2016, Menaker joined Hofstra as its Director of Tennis and Head Coach of both its men’s and women’s varsity tennis teams. In late April 2016, Michal Kaplan,5 then a first‐year student at Hofstra and a member of the women’s varsity tennis team, approached Menaker to discuss her athletic scholarship. Kaplan claimed that Menaker’s predecessor had promised to increase her then‐45 percent athletic scholarship to a full scholarship in the fall of 2016. Kaplan sought confirmation from Menaker about her scholarship increase, but Menaker explained that he knew nothing about the arrangement and would need to look into the matter. 3 Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652, 668 (7th Cir. 2019). 4 App. 111 (Am. Compl. ¶ 51). 5Although Kaplan’s name was omitted from the pleadings in this case, she has since agreed to proceed under her own name in a related suit, thereby rendering moot the continued use of a pseudonym in this case. See Menaker v. Kaplan, No. 2:17 Civ. 5840 (DRH) (AYS) (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 5, 2017), Dkt. Nos. 40‐ 41. 5 After reviewing Kaplan’s financial aid records and speaking with his supervisor, Menaker confirmed there was no record of any such promise. He informed Kaplan of this, but Kaplan insisted that she had received an oral promise from Menaker’s predecessor. Menaker responded that he was unable to increase Kaplan’s scholarship for the coming year (Kaplan’s sophomore year) but could do so for her junior and senior years. Kaplan stated that she would inform her parents, and Menaker replied that they should feel free to call him with any questions. In early May 2016, Menaker received an irate phone call from Kaplan’s father, who accused him of reneging on a commitment made by his predecessor. Kaplan’s father threatened Menaker that if he did not increase his daughter’s scholarship, trouble would “come back to him.”6 C. Kaplan Files a Title IX Complaint Against Menaker In late July 2016, Hofstra received a letter addressed to the university’s President and its Title IX Coordinator, titled “Michal Kaplan’s Title IX Complaint” (the “Kaplan Letter”).7 The Kaplan 6 App. 100 (Am. Compl. ¶ 11) (brackets omitted). 7 App. 117–120. We consider the full contents of the Kaplan Letter, including those portions not specifically quoted in the Amended Complaint, because a “complaint is deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference.” Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). We do not, however, consider extrinsic materials referenced in the Kaplan Letter (e.g., screenshots of Facebook postings and Youtube videos), despite their inclusion in the Appendix. 6 Letter, sent by Kaplan’s lawyer, alleges that Menaker subjected her to “unwanted and unwarranted sexual harassment” and “quid pro quo threats [that] were severe, pervasive, hostile, and disgusting.”8 In particular, the letter alleges that Menaker was “obsess[ed] with” and would comment on Kaplan’s menstrual cycle, that he would tell players to “dress nice” and “shave their legs,” that he once “scream[ed] obscenities and verbal abuse at a female tennis player on the opposing team,” and that after Kaplan “did not respond to [Menaker’s] advances, [he] soon began to threaten [her]” scholarship and position on the team.9 Menaker maintains that each of these allegations is false.10 As we have explained, “a plaintiff’s reliance on the terms and effect of a document in drafting the complaint is a necessary prerequisite to the court’s consideration of the document on a dismissal motion; mere notice or possession is not enough.” Id. at 153 (emphasis in original). Menaker’s Amended Complaint does not rely on these extrinsic materials. 8 App. 117, 119. 9 Id. at 117–19 (internal quotation marks omitted). 10 The Kaplan Letter also describes (and characterizes as sexual harassment) three interactions on the social media website Facebook. These alleged interactions are: (1) that Menaker “friended” Kaplan on Facebook in January 2016; (2) that at 12:30 a.m. on Valentine’s Day, Menaker “commented” on a photograph of Kaplan wearing a hunting jacket and standing in front of a “large red LOVE statue in New York City” with the following: “Looks like you found what you were hunting for in that jacket,” followed by a “winking emoji face”; and (3) that Menaker “messaged” Kaplan on April 6, 2016 with a link to a satirical YouTube video entitled “Casually Explained: Is She Into You?” Id. at 117–18. The video depicts cartoons in different scenarios as a narrator explains how you can tell if the girl is “into you.” Id. Although Menaker does not specifically discuss these allegations in 7 D. The July 2016 Meeting with Hofstra Officials Shortly after receiving the July 2016 Kaplan Letter, Hofstra’s Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer Mone (“Mone”), and its Vice President and Director of Athletics, Jeffrey Hathaway (“Hathaway”), summoned Menaker to a meeting. Menaker was not informed of the reason for the meeting in advance. Mone, who appeared to be referring to a document in front of her, began by asking Menaker how he communicated with members of the tennis program. Menaker responded that he used several forms of electronic communication as, he claims, is standard in athletic programs. As Mone’s questioning continued, Menaker asked to see the document. Mone handed him the Kaplan Letter. After reading the letter, Menaker verbally denied all of the accusations contained therein. Hathaway, who was also present, joined Menaker in vigorously disputing a particular accusation that Hathaway knew to be false. Mone instructed Menaker to collect copies of all his Amended Complaint, he has “denied all the accusations contained in the Letter . . . as false, taken out of context, and misleading.” Id. at 104 (Am. Compl. ¶ 27). Of course, nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as limiting an employer’s ability to terminate an at‐will employee for general, non‐discriminatory reasons—including disapproved use of social media. As alleged, however, the circumstances of Menaker’s termination do not simply consist of an employer’s generic disapproval of Menaker’s social media use. Rather, Menaker was expressly terminated because of allegations made in a formal sexual harassment complaint and despite Hofstra’s adoption of formal procedures for such complaints. 8 communications with Kaplan and informed him that Hofstra would be conducting an investigation into the matter and that a report would soon be “shared” with him.11 At the time, Hofstra maintained a written “Harassment Policy,” which “covers the conduct of all University employees and students” and outlines proper procedures for investigating and resolving harassment claims.12 The Harassment Policy provides for both an “informal” process for pursuing a “mutually agreeable” resolution and “formal” procedures. The latter procedures include requirements that Hofstra’s investigator interview potential witnesses, that accused parties have the right to submit a written response, and that Hofstra’s investigator produce a written determination of reasonable cause.13 E. July and August 2016: Menaker Waits for Hofstra to Take Action Over the following two months, Menaker provided Hofstra copies of his communications with Kaplan. He pointed out that “the time frames described in [the Kaplan Letter] were provably false,”14 and he suggested names of particular student‐athletes who could provide information that might be useful to the investigation. Hofstra 11 Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28). 12 Id. at 122. 13 Id. at 127–29. 14 Id. at 104 (Am. Compl. ¶ 30). 9 made no further requests from Menaker and did not interview the students he identified. During this same period, Hathaway told Menaker that he assumed the complaint to be a ploy by Kaplan’s parents, and that complaints such as Kaplan’s were not uncommon. Meanwhile, Menaker retained counsel, who contacted Mone. Mone advised Menaker’s counsel to refrain from taking legal action against Kaplan and promised to keep him informed of the investigation’s status. F. The September 2016 Meeting: Menaker is Fired On September 7, 2016, Menaker was summoned to a meeting with Hofstra’s Director of Human Resources, Evelyn Miller‐Suber (“Miller‐Suber”), Mone, and Hathaway. As with the July meeting, Menaker was not given advance notice of the purpose of the meeting and did not have an opportunity to prepare for it. Mone opened the meeting by recalling the Kaplan Letter and repeating several of its allegations. Mone also added a new allegation, namely that Menaker had “made statements to students about his divorce.”15 After completing her statement, Mone left the room, and Miller‐Suber informed Menaker that he was being fired for 15 Id. at 107 (Am. Compl. ¶ 42). 10 “unprofessional conduct.”16 She added that, while none of the stated allegations was independently sufficient for termination, he was nevertheless being fired for the “totality” of the allegations.17 G. The Proceedings Below On March 6, 2017, Menaker filed a charge of sex‐based discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission, and, on May 30, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter. On September 22, 2017, Menaker filed suit, alleging violations of Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.18 On January 12, 2018, Hofstra filed a motion to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On September 26, 2018, the District Court granted the motion, concluding that Menaker had failed to plead facts supporting a plausible inference that his sex played a role in his termination. This appeal followed. 16 Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 43) (internal quotation marks omitted). 17 Id. 18 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and N.Y.C. Code § 8‐ 101, respectively. 11