Doe v. New York University

Discrimination Claim Not Pleaded; Speculative Claim Is 'Riddled With Inconsistencies'

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff John Doe brings this putative class-action lawsuit against Defendant New York University (“NYU”), alleging that the membership-selection process for the NYU Law Review (“Law Review”) violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. §2000d, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. §1681(a), and 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983″), by giving preferential treatment to women, non-Asian, homosexual, and transgender students.¹ Before me is NYU’s motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because I lack subject-matter jurisdiction and, in any event, the complaint fails to state a claim, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, Doe’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. I. Background² A. Factual Background The Law Review is a student-run academic journal that publishes legal scholarship. (Compl. 5.) The students who run the Law Review — commonly referred to as editors — select the articles that the Law Review publishes and the students who are invited to join its ranks. (Id.) Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (“SFFA”), 600 U.S. 181 (2023), the Law Review would select fifty new editors each year from the rising second-year class. (Compl. 9.) Of the fifty students, fifteen were selected based on their performance on a writing competition, fifteen were selected based on their first-year grades, and eight were selected based on a combination of their writing-competition scores and first-year grades. (Id.) The remaining twelve spots were filled by the Law Review’s Diversity Committee (“Diversity Committee”). (Id. 10.) To select students to fill these twelve spots, the Law Review required applicants to draft personal statements and permitted them to submit anonymized résumés. (Id.

Doe v. New York University

Discrimination Claim Not Pleaded; Speculative Claim Is 'Riddled With Inconsistencies'

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal