WORK WITH US
Court Finds That University Failed to Adequately Address Jewish-American Student’s Discrimination Complaints
Yael Canaan, a Jewish-American student of Israeli descent, attended Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Architecture from 2018 to 2023.
In May 2021, a student leader allegedly posted inflammatory messages in a large Facebook group, exposing private emails and identifying Jewish students. Feeling unsafe, Canaan said she contacted University administrators, including the Dean of Students and the University President. Canaan alleged that the administrators expressed sympathy but took no substantive action.
Then, in May 2022, during a final review for a studio class project, Canaan alleged that Professor Mary-Lou Arscott interrupted Canaan, criticized her work, and made discriminatory remarks, including suggesting that her time would have been better spent investigating “what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.” Despite reporting this to faculty and the School of Architecture’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Director, Canaan said that no significant action was taken. Instead, she said the administrative responses ranged from dismissive comments to delayed meetings.
Canaan said that subsequent efforts to resolve the issue occurred more than two months later, and included a mediated Zoom meeting with Professor Arscott, though it resulted in no acknowledgment of wrongdoing. During the meeting, and through follow-up emails, Professor Arscott allegedly recommended reading material that promoted antisemitic narratives, exacerbating Canaan’s distress.
Canaan said that other faculty members also allegedly retaliated against her following the mediated meeting with Professor Arscott. Canaan said this retaliation included issuing Canaan unfair grades, denying her access to studio reviews, and creating an isolating academic environment. Administrators again provided limited or no assistance.
Canaan brought a number of claims against the University including discrimination, hostile educational environment, and retaliation claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; a breach of contract claim; and an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Title VI Claims
Under Title VI, a discrimination claim requires the plaintiff to show: (1) membership in a protected class, (2) adverse action in an educational context, (3) qualifications to continue their education, and (4) a causal connection between the adverse action and their protected status, which can be established through deliberate indifference. A hostile educational environment claim under Title VI adds the requirement that the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to deprive the plaintiff of access to educational opportunities.
Canaan alleged that faculty members made antisemitic remarks and that University administrators, despite being aware of her complaints, failed to take meaningful corrective actions. The University argued that Canaan failed to show intentional discrimination or sufficiently severe and pervasive harassment, asserting that administrative responses were adequate and the allegations lacked comparators to establish disparate treatment.
The Court found that Canaan plausibly alleged deliberate indifference by University administrators, satisfying the fourth element of the discrimination claim. Evidence of antisemitic comments by faculty, repeated complaints to administrators, and the lack of meaningful corrective action supported the inference that the University intentionally failed to address the discrimination.
For the hostile educational environment claim, the Court considered the cumulative impact of the harassment, including faculty remarks, administrative inaction, and retaliatory conduct by other professors. The Court concluded that Canaan adequately demonstrated the harassment was both pervasive and severe enough to interfere with her educational experience, depriving her of access to academic benefits.
The Court reasoned that Title VI liability could attach because University decision-makers, including the Dean of Students and DEI administrators, were repeatedly informed of the harassment but took no meaningful action beyond superficial meetings. The Court said their failure to act, coupled with faculty behavior, created an atmosphere of deliberate indifference to Canaan’s protected rights.
Retaliation claims under Title VI require a plaintiff to show: (1) engagement in a protected activity, such as reporting discrimination; (2) an adverse action by the federally funded entity after or contemporaneously with the protected activity; and (3) a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected activity.
Here, Canaan alleged that professors retaliated against her after she reported antisemitic behavior, including giving her lower grades, denying her access to one-on-one instruction, and excluding her from academic opportunities. The University argued that these actions were taken by individual professors, not the institution itself, and that Canaan failed to notify the University in time to address the alleged retaliation. The Court disagreed, finding that Canaan adequately alleged that the University was aware of the retaliation—particularly through her complaints to administrators—but failed to act. The Court held that the allegations plausibly connected the adverse actions to her reporting of discrimination, allowing the retaliation claim to proceed.
Breach of Contract Claim
For the breach of contract claim, Canaan alleged that the University breached its contractual obligations as outlined in its anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies, Title IX Resource Guide, and procedural guidelines, which formed part of the contractual relationship between the University and its students. Canaan argued that this contractual relationship also included the “Statement of Assurance,” which was a policy that stated that the University “does not discriminate” in its programs or activities on the basis of characteristics such as race, color, national origin, religion, ancestry, and other protected categories.
The University argued that certain policies, like the Statement of Assurance, were aspirational and not enforceable, and that specific procedures under Title IX were not triggered because Canaan never filed a formal complaint.
The Court found that while general statements like the Statement of Assurance were not enforceable, the anti-retaliation policy and Title IX Resource Guide contained specific and actionable promises that could support a breach of contract claim. It further held that Canaan plausibly alleged that the University discouraged her from filing a formal complaint, which could constitute a violation of its policies. As a result, the Court allowed parts of the breach of contract claim to proceed.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim
Finally, for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim, Canaan alleged that the University’s deliberate indifference to antisemitic harassment caused her severe emotional and physical harm, including depression and debilitating migraines. Under Pennsylvania law, an IIED claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct was (1) extreme and outrageous, (2) intentional or reckless, and (3) caused severe emotional distress. Additionally, to hold an employer vicariously liable, the conduct must have been within the scope of employment and motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.
The University argued that the alleged conduct by its faculty, particularly Professor Arscott, was not extreme or outrageous enough to meet the legal standard and that there was no basis for vicarious liability because the actions were not tied to serving the University’s interests. The Court agreed with the University’s second argument, finding that Canaan failed to allege facts showing that the faculty’s actions were motivated by a purpose to serve the University. As a result, the Court dismissed the IIED claim without prejudice, allowing Canaan an opportunity to amend her complaint to address this deficiency.
Canaan v. Carnegie Mellon Univ. (W.D.Pa. Dec. 17, 2024) __ F.Supp.3d __ [2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 227575].
Note: While Title VI only applies to private schools receiving federal funding, the case provides helpful guidance to schools responding to student complaints of discrimination, especially while navigating sensitive topics and current events.