Most claims dismissed in federal lawsuit

Listen to this article

A federal judge has dismissed most claims in a lawsuit against Hobart and William Smith Colleges filed by a former student who was accused of sexual misconduct with a co-ed and expelled.

The plaintiff, Matthew Rolph, also filed a defamation suit against the coed in state Supreme Court in Ontario County in February 2015.

“It’s pending. There’s been no action on that case,” said Rolph’s father, Peter Rolph, a lawyer at the Hall and Karz law firm in Canandaigua, which is representing Matthew Rolph in the defamation suit.

Rolph was acquitted of criminal sex act in Geneva City Court, a charge related to the alleged sexual misconduct cited by the school.

The Daily Record has confirmed the identity of the coed, but will not name her because she is an alleged sexual assault victim.

Rolph was approaching graduation when he was expelled in April 2014.

The federal complaint includes a detailed account of the controversy and publicity over the federal Department of Education’s threats at that time to withhold funding from colleges that fail to address sexual violence issues on their campuses.

The suit claims the school in the city of Geneva disciplined Rolph to avoid a further investigation by the Department of Education and possibly a lawsuit against the Colleges by the Department of Justice.

On April 14, 2014, the Colleges convened a student grievance panel to hear the case. Rolph was not allowed to have an attorney at the hearing. He had an adviser, but the adviser could not speak or question witnesses.

Roe made a statement, but Rolph could not question her. There was no physical evidence or witnesses to support the allegations against Rolph, the suit claims.

Rolph’s federal complaint includes two claims under Title IX of the Education Amendment Act and four claims under state law.

U.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Wolford dismissed the state claims and left intact a claim filed under Title IX of the Education Amendment Act.

“Plaintiff has adequately alleged facts that plausibly support at least a minimal inference of gender bias on the part of HWS,” Wolford wrote in her 40-page decision filed Sept. 20.

Rolph’s claims under state law include: breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

While Wolford denied the defense position that the state law claims were timebarred, she dismissed the breach of contract claim because Rolph “fails to identify any specific terms of the implied contract that were violated.”

Wolford agreed with the defense that the promissory estoppel claim is based on promises contained in the Student Handbook, but Rolph failed to identify a specific promise.

Citing several out-of-state cases, Rolph’s attorney argued the state negligence claim on the basis of a supposed obligation of the school based on accreditation standards.

“However, none of these cases support Plaintiff’s position; in other words, none stand for the proposition that, under New York law, accreditation standards give rise to a duty of care for colleges or universities,” Wolford wrote.

“Plaintiff concedes that he has not stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed,” Wolford wrote.

Rolph is represented in the federal case by Rochester attorney Catherine H. Josh and Joshua A. Engel, an attorney based in Mason, Ohio. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The school is represented by Pepper Hamilton LLP in Philadelphia. The defense attorneys also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.