19-3473-cv Bailey v. New York Law School UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of November, two thousand twenty-one. Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ THERESA BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 19-3473 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL, ANTHONY CROWELL, ELLA MAE ESTRADA, DAVID SCHOENBROD, AND BARBARA JEANE GRAVES-POLLER, Defendants-Appellees, JEFFERY BECHERER, DEBORAH NICOLE ARCHER, HOWARD MEYERS, ERIKA WOOD, ORAL HOPE, AND VICTORIA EASTUS, Defendants. _____________________________________ 1 For Plaintiff-Appellant: THERESA BAILEY, pro se, New York, NY. For Defendants-Appellees: MICHAEL JOSEPH VOLPE, Venable LLP, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ramos, J.; Cott, M.J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Theresa Bailey (“Bailey”), proceeding pro se, sued New York Law School (“NYLS”) and four of its employees, Dean Anthony Crowell, then-Assistant Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid Ella Estrada (“Estrada”), Professor David Schoenbrod (“Schoenbrod”), and Professor Barbara Graves-Poller (“Graves-Poller,” and collectively, the “Defendants-Appellees”), under, inter alia, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3); and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq., alleging that they discriminated and retaliated against her after she reported being sexually assaulted by a classmate. The district court dismissed Bailey’s claims for discrimination under Title IX, Title VI, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), and for fraud, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). The court then granted Defendants-Appellees’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Bailey’s Title IX and NYSHRL retaliation claims and her claim under New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 2 I. Waiver While we “liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (internal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals