Title VI action v. Haverford College dismissed

Here, this time with prejudice, because plaintiffs largely failed to clean-up the press-release pleading the court dismissed in January. There also is this line at the end of the opinion--"Oral argument was suffused with emotional rhetoric, giving this Court little comfort in the prospect for further refinement of facts adequate to support a claim," a strong warning about the perils of performative litigation.

The court's analysis reflects the Ben Eidelson/Deborah Hellman arguments about why plaintiffs may struggle to plead Title VI claims. In particular, the court held a firm line that: 1)  the college's failure to silence offensive-but-constitutionally protected speech (which was true for much of the speech at issue) cannot form the basis for Title VI liability and 2) the college's good-faith efforts to balance competing interests (such as allowing a sit-in to run its course) cannot establish deliberate indifference.

The court did find the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a breach-of-contract claim based on Haverford's alleged failure to investigate and resolve bias allegations under college policy, although only for nominal damages. Two thoughts on this. First, it shows the benefits of small-bore litigation efforts. Rather than a massive effort to litigate antisemitism writ large under a statute not necessarily designed for those purposes, plaintiffs may succeed by showing a discrete non-federal violation as to them.

Second, plaintiffs face a strategic choice. They likely want to appeal the Title VI dismissal. But the court's decision is not final because the contract claim remains. The court might certify the order as final as to the Title VI claims under FRCP 54(b). They have a good argument--Title VI forms the heart of the case and it would benefit the litigation process to determine whether plaintiffs plausibly pleaded those claims (that is, whether the district court was wrong) now, rather than waiting. Alternatively, plaintiffs could voluntarily dismiss the contract claims--which they likely do not want to do, as those represent their best hope for any recovery right now. Interestingly, the court did not (at least in this order) decline supplemental jurisdiction over that state claim, another way of creating finality.