A Manhattan federal judge has found that the State University of New York at Stony Brook provided “prompt and equitable” handling of a student's sexual-assault complaint, granting summary judgment to the university in a lawsuit alleging that it showed deliberate indifference to her allegations.

The plaintiff in the Title IX case, SUNY Stony Brook senior Sarah Tubbs, claimed she was raped in 2014 by a fellow student following a party, according to the decision in Tubbs v. Stony Brook University, which was issued Tuesday. She went to the police and participated in the university's internal process for dealing with campus sexual assaults. Her alleged assailant, a then-sophomore named Daniel Verdejo, was ultimately held not responsible by a hearing board for the sexual assault allegations brought against him. Tubbs went on to appeal the ruling, but it was upheld by the hearing board.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Tubbs claims the school was in violation of Title IX of the federal civil rights law, alleging that Stony Brook was deliberately indifferent regarding her allegations.

U.S. District Judge Nelson Román expressed sympathy and concern for Tubbs' experience with the Title IX process at Stony Brook.

“The court is sensitive to the difficulties that plaintiff has encountered on her route to redress,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, it is a difficult route to traverse.”

But he ruled that Stony Brook operated within federal law and granted the school's summary judgment motion to dismiss the case.

“Although the court is sympathetic to plaintiff's difficulties, unfortunately, the law in this area repeatedly sings the same tune: 'You can't always get what you want,'” Román wrote.

Tubbs argued that Stony Brook failed to investigate and provide her with a prompt and equitable solution to the complaint against Verdejo—a requirement, she claimed, under the guidance provided at the time by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. Román, quoting the guidance, noted that it was “quite bare and does not impose a hard and fast time frame for schools to complete investigations.”

Courts, including both the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have held that a lengthy and unjustified delay was required to show deliberate indifference, Román noted. Yet the facts showed that Stony Brook responded “diligently and in accordance with all required procedures” regarding Tubbs' complaint. Campus police were swift to assist, while school officials became involved quickly and substantively in the process, which moved towards a hearing within months of the initial incident. Far from being indifferent, Román found school officials were “all attentive” to the issue.

Tubbs further claimed she was denied basic due-process protections for complainants seeking hearings, arguing that the school's time frame was at odds with the federal guidelines. However, Román said she was ultimately “comparing apples and oranges,” as the two sets of languages actually refer to different things—the school's 30-day time limit is for filing a complaint, while the federal guidelines' 60-day time frame is referring to the typical time a school completes an investigation.

Tubbs went on to argue that the hearing process itself was inequitable, allowing, for example, the defendant to cross-examine a complainant's witness and evidence, without giving the complainant the chance to respond to witnesses on the other side. However, Román noted that both Tubbs and Verdejo were allowed to present their cases and question each other.

But more importantly, Román stated, the court did not need to assess the validity of Tubbs' hearing-related complaints, because no federal law or rules imposed specific requirements on university disciplinary hearings. To illustrate his point, Román identified 15 issues that arose from Stony Brook's handling of Tubbs' case—none of which are addressed by federal language. And while school procedures do class with suggestions from the latest DOE guidelines, courts have held that these disparities don't amount to deliberate indifference.

“Although the grievance procedure may have been flawed and imperfect … no reasonable juror could find that university defendants violated their barebones Title IX obligations,” Román wrote.

The district court also addressed Tubbs' claims that Stony Brook be held liable for it's pre-assault response to general problems of sexual violence among students. She pointed to problems raised during a review of SUNY schools' compliance with federal laws and rules. While a number of issues were flagged, none were specific to Stony Brook, and even if they were, they wouldn't have amounted to the kind of negligence required for the court to find in her favor.

“In arriving at its decision today, the court is not saying that university defendants were model citizens, nor that their process was ideal. Even though university defendants could have—and perhaps should have—demonstrated greater compassion in handling a sensitive allegation, their responsibility derives from the need to be nominally vigilant about access to educational opportunities through the loose framework of a discrimination statute,” Román wrote. “That statute and its associated jurisprudence places a limited onus on the shoulders of federally funded schools. Here, that onus was met.”

With no surviving federal claims, Román declined to take supplemental jurisdiction over Tubbs' state claims of assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress made against Verdejo.

Tubbs was represented in the suit by Timko & Moses of counsel Christopher Weddle. He declined to comment on the decision.

Private attorney Frederick Brewington led Verdejo's legal team. An attorney at the office did not respond to a request for comment.

A spokeswoman for Stony Brook did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Related:

Suits Against Harvard and NYU Law Reviews Claim Racial, Gender Preferences

Sexual Misconduct Statute Becomes Monstrosity

NY Lawyer Decries 'Anything Goes' Atmosphere at Title IX Hearings