Don't Call Her "Monica" And Other Names Professors Should Not Call Students in Their Classrooms
May 14, 2004
In the case Hayut v. S.U.N.Y. New Paltz, et al., 352 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2003), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed a student’s claim against the State University of New York (SUNY) and four individuals – her professor, department chair, associate dean and dean – for sexual harassment allegedly committed by her professor. The student claimed, among other things, that the professor continually called her “Monica” in the classroom because she looked like Monica Lewinsky. The student sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging a violation of her equal protection rights under the U.S. and New York State Constitutions, as well as under Title IX, for failure to remedy the professor’s discrimination and ministerial neglect. The court found that summary judgment was properly granted to SUNY and the individual defendants, except for the plaintiff’s professor.
In analyzing Hayut’s §1983 claim, the court declared it was clear that a professor employed at a state university is a state actor and possesses state power by virtue of state law. Hence, the issue was whether the professor misused that power in the course of performing his duties. In evaluating the professor’s conduct, which included calling the plaintiff “Monica” and making comments about “Bill and cigars,” the court took into account the contemporaneous President Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal, pointing out the sexual connotations with which the “Monica” nickname was associated. The court pointed out that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy both the pervasiveness and severity requirements. The court, relying on the routine nature of the conduct, observed that it set the tone for the class and permeated its atmosphere. It rejected, however, a mathematical calculation to quantify the alleged conduct.
The court also determined that the comments would not have been made but for Hayut’s sex. As for injury and/or interference with educational progress, the court reasoned that Hayut was adversely affected by the professor’s conduct as she was unable to concentrate on her studies, felt humiliation and emotional distress, did not want to attend classes, and was unable to sleep. The Court felt a reasonable person similarly situated would also have been affected.
Hayut alleged that SUNY and SUNY New Paltz were liable under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because she was deprived of access to educational opportunities. Since none of the charged individual defendants had actual knowledge of the professor’s harassment until Hayut verbally reported it to a Dean in December 1998, the SUNY defendants were not liable under Title IX for any harassment, which occurred during the fall 1998 semester. However, since there were residual effects of the professor’s conduct, which affected Hayut in spring 1999, the court looked to whether the University adequately responded. Here, the question was whether the response made by the officials amounted to deliberate indifference to discrimination. The evidence demonstrated that the individual defendants reasonably responded to Hayut’s complaint in accordance with all applicable procedures and in a timely manner.
Hayut claimed that the individual defendants were also liable under §1983 based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, that theory alone was not enough to impose damage liability on individuals under §1983 because to so find, there must be evidence of a supervisor’s “personal involvement” in the conduct at issue. In this case, there was no such evidence. Finally, Hayut also claimed a §1983 violation under a “class of one” theory of discrimination. The court found no evidence that the individual defendants acted towards Hayut
with intentional or irrational differential treatment, or undertook any scheme
with respect to her.
For more information, e-mail Colleen Sorrell at
colleen.sorrell@hklaw.com, or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.
Related Practices