Judge Tosses Lawsuit Challenging Affirmative Action Policies at Harvard Law Review
The lawsuit claimed the policies meant white men were pulling the short straws, as more consideration went to women and minorities. But it received a failing grade from U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, who ruled the allegations were too vague.
August 09, 2019 at 11:46 AM
4 minute read
Nonprofit organizations in a lawsuit against the fellows of Harvard College and the Harvard Law School Review received a lesson on civil action Friday, when U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts dismissed their lawsuit challenging how race and gender are considered in student applications, faculty hiring and articles for publication.
The two plaintiffs—Faculty, Alumni and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences and the Coalition for Meritocracy at Universities—alleged that using race and gender-based affirmative-action policies when selecting students violates Titles VI and IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which govern discrimination. The October 2018 lawsuit claimed those policies meant white men were pulling the short straws, as more consideration went to women and minorities.
But Sorokin found that the “sparse allegations” in the complaint weren’t enough to prove standing because the plaintiffs hadn’t established actual harm, or identified anyone in particular who’d been injured by the practice.
It’s been a bumpy ride for the plaintiffs, who in “astonishing” fashion, appeared not to have done their homework, the judge said.
“The plaintiffs have urged the court to apply a different standard, insisting that ‘conclusory pleading is entirely acceptable in federal court,’ … and citing Form 11 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in support of the astonishing proposition that a one-sentence complaint identifying only the date and location a civil claim arose should survive a motion to dismiss,” the judge wrote in a footnote. “They zealously adhered to this view even after Harvard pointed out, on the very first page of its reply brief, that Form 11 was ‘eliminated years ago.’ … The plaintiffs ceased to champion Form 11 only after Harvard’s counsel reiterated during the motion hearing that the form had been abrogated, and the court offered plaintiffs’ counsel a current copy of the Federal Rule book.”
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Alexander K. Parachini and George W. Vien of Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar in Boston and Jonathan F. Mitchell of Mitchell Law in Austin, did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
Defense counsel Felicia H. Ellsworth declined to comment. Ellsworth, of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Boston, represented the president and fellows of Harvard College, with Seth P. Waxman and Paul R.Q. Wolfson.
The lawsuit included examples of faculty and scholars who’d had articles rejected, and some claimed they’d had their articles judged and edited “by less capable students.” But Sorokin said he needed more detail about the alleged injuries and how they violated federal law.
The Harvard Law Review accepts 48 students every year. Of those, 20 are selected based on their performance in a writing test, while 10 are picked based on both their writing test scores and their first-year grades.
The plaintiffs took issue with the remaining 18 people, who are chosen “through a holistic but anonymous review.” That includes looking at race, ethnic identity, physical disability, gender identity, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status, according to the ruling.
Sorokin also found that claims against U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and the government couldn’t stand, unless evidence showed federal funding to the defendants.
But the lawsuit, dismissed without prejudice, isn’t dead yet.
Plaintiffs can file an amended complaint by Sept. 9, but based on Sorokin’s ruling, they would have to pack in a lot more information for their suit to survive.
“Their failure to supply even the slightest description of any member who might satisfy the prerequisites for Article III standing—including concrete and particularized, actual or imminent injury redressable by a favorable decision in this case—requires dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety,” the ruling said.
Read the ruling:
Related stories: Harvard Law Review Hits Back Against Discrimination Claims
|Suits Against Harvard and NYU Law Reviews Claim Racial, Gender Preferences
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Everything From A to Z': University GCs Tested by Legal, Financial, Societal Challenges
6 minute read'A Horrible Reputation for Bad Verdicts': Plaintiffs Attorney Breaks Down $129M Wrongful-Death Verdict From Conservative Venue
How Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
'Basic Arithmetic': Court Rules in Favor of LA Charter School Denied Funding by California Education Department
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250