Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed summary judgment in claims arising from an allegedly nonconsensual sexual encounter between two Northeastern University students. The court held that a university may have a special relationship and duties concerning foreseeable criminal acts and alcohol-related emergencies, but Northeastern had no duty to prevent this assault because the harm was not reasonably foreseeable on the record, and it met any applicable duty regarding the plaintiff's intoxication. The court affirmed summary judgment on the negligence-related, contract, and statutory claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Northeastern owed Helfman a duty to protect her from a third party's sexual assault based on the special relationship between a university and its student, notwithstanding her voluntary intoxication.
- Whether a university has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect an intoxicated student from alcohol-related harm when the university has actual knowledge of an imminent danger of serious physical harm and the student cannot seek help.
- Whether Northeastern or its resident assistants breached a duty by hosting or permitting the party, failing to intervene, or negligently training or supervising resident assistants and student conduct board members.
- Whether Helfman established negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Whether Northeastern breached a contract arising from its student handbook and code of conduct by its handling of the disciplinary proceedings.
- Whether Northeastern violated the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act by breaching that alleged contract.
- Whether Northeastern violated Title IX through deliberate indifference or an erroneous disciplinary outcome motivated by gender bias.
Holdings
- A university's special relationship with its students can impose a duty to protect resident students from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties, including when intoxication makes the criminal act possible. But Northeastern had no duty to protect Helfman from the alleged assault because, on the record, the particular harm was not reasonably foreseeable.
- A college or university has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect a student from harms associated with an alcohol-related emergency when it has actual knowledge of conditions that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the student is in imminent danger of serious physical harm due to intoxication and is too intoxicated to seek help independently.
- The resident assistants did not breach a duty to Helfman on these facts, and Northeastern therefore could not be held vicariously liable for their conduct.
- The negligent training and supervision claims failed because the evidence did not show that Northeastern or the individual defendants knew or should have known that the resident assistants or student conduct board members were unfit or would fail to follow university policies.
- Helfman's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim failed because she could not establish the necessary underlying negligence.
- Northeastern did not breach its contractual obligations under the student handbook or code of conduct because its disciplinary proceedings did not violate Helfman's reasonable expectations or basic fairness.
- The Massachusetts Equal Rights Act claim failed because it was based entirely on the alleged breach of contract, and no breach of contract was established.
- Helfman did not establish Title IX deliberate indifference because Northeastern responded promptly and reasonably to her allegations, its disciplinary procedures were not shown to be deficient, and the record did not establish exclusion from educational opportunities.
- The erroneous-outcome Title IX claim failed because Helfman did not provide evidence casting articulable doubt on the accuracy of the disciplinary outcome or showing that gender bias was a motivating factor.
Key quotations
“When a college or university has actual knowledge of conditions that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a student on campus is in imminent danger of serious physical harm due to alcohol intoxication, and so intoxicated that the student is incapable of seeking help for him- or herself, the college or university has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect that student from harm.”
“The mere presence of an intoxicated young woman in the company of an intoxicated young man as they returned to their shared residence hall does not, without more, suggest that a crime or physical harm is imminent.”
Factual background
Helfman and A.G., first-year Northeastern students living in the same residence hall, attended an off-campus Halloween party where both consumed alcohol. Helfman became intoxicated, vomited, and was initially offered an escort home by other students, but ultimately returned to her residence hall with A.G.; she later alleged that A.G. sexually assaulted her in his room. Northeastern investigated, charged A.G. under its student code, and held disciplinary proceedings that resulted in findings that he had not committed sexual assault. Northeastern police did not pursue criminal charges.
Procedural history
Helfman commenced the civil action in the Suffolk Superior Court on October 31, 2016. After discovery, the Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. The Supreme Judicial Court granted the plaintiff's application for direct appellate review and affirmed.