The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit  on Thursday revived a discrimination lawsuit by the former director of Hofstra University’s tennis program, who claimed he was fired as the result of false allegations of sexual harassment from a female player.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that U.S. District Judge Denis R. Hurley’s decision last year to dismiss the case in the Eastern District of New York rested on improper factual findings and conflicted with Second Circuit precedent setting a more relaxed standard for plaintiffs challenging university procedures dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct.

Writing for the court, Judge José A. Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said Hurley had placed “several unwarranted limitations” on the Second Circuit’s 2016 ruling in Doe v. Columbia, which held that “procedural deficiencies” in a university’s handling of sexual assault claims against a male student supported an inference of gender bias.

According to Cabranes, the decision applied equally to cases involving allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment, and it could not be interpreted to apply only to students and not to university employees.

“Here, Menaker has clearly alleged that he suffered an adverse employment action, and that this action came in response to accusations (if not an actual finding) of sexual harassment,” Cabranes wrote in a 34-page opinion. “Similarly, Menaker has plausibly alleged facts that suggest at least some pressure on Hofstra to react more forcefully to allegations of male sexual misconduct.”

The lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Menaker, was the latest in a series of cases to target colleges and universities, as they face increasing pressure to react more forcefully to allegations of male sexual misconduct.

The U.S. Department of Education in 2011 required schools to take a more rigorous approach to such claims and adopt a lower burden of proof when adjudicating claims of sexual misconduct. According to the opinion, Hofstra itself was under investigation in 2015 for failing to comply with the mandate and faced internal criticism for not responding strongly enough to sexual misconduct on campus.

Menaker, who coached both the men’s and women’s varsity tennis teams at Hofstra, claimed he was the subject of a malicious allegation from a student-athlete who allegedly told school officials that Menaker was “obsessed” with her menstrual cycle and made inappropriate comments to female athletes.

The student-athlete, who played for the university from 2015 to 2019, was not a party to the lawsuit and could not be reached Thursday afternoon for comment. An attorney for Hofstra did not immediately respond to an email requesting a comment on her behalf.

Menaker has denied the student-athlete’s allegations and said in his lawsuit that Hofstra was too quick to fire him following a bungled investigation of her claims.

In his ruling, Cabranes said multiple “irregularities” with the school’s investigation that supported Menaker’s claims that his termination was motivated, at least in part, by gender. For instance, Cabranes cited allegations from Menaker’s complaint, which claimed Hofstra failed to interview key witnesses and follow its own written harassment policy.

Those allegations, Cabranes said, must be taken as true at the dismissal stage, and he faulted Hurley for reaching conclusions beyond the facts alleged in the complaint. His ruling did not reach the underlying merits of Menaker’s claims.

Jill Rosenberg, an attorney for Hofstra, said in a statement that she was “confident that Hofstra’s actions and decisions will be upheld once the merits of this matter are considered in the lower court.”

“We look forward to demonstrating there was no discrimination in the university’s actions,” said Rosenberg, a partner with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.

Stephen D. Houck, an Offit Kurman attorney who represented Menaker, declined to comment on the ruling.

The case, filed in Brooklyn federal court, is captioned Menaker v. Hofstra University.

Read More: