Wyler v. Connecticut State Univ Sys et al

Filing 11

RULING AND ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/23/12. (Glynn, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
:
WENDY WYLER
V.

:

CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM, ET AL.,

Case No.

3:12cv97(RNC)

:
:

RULING AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on plaintiff’s application for
a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)(doc. 2).

For the reasons

that follow, the application is denied.
Plaintiff, a student at Southern Connecticut State
University, alleges that between January and May 2011, she was
sexually harassed by a member of the faculty, David Chevan.

She

brings this action against the University, Chevan and others
claiming, among other things, that the University has violated
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et
seq. (“Title IX”), by failing to discipline Chevan.

She submits

a report of the University’s Office of Diversity and Equity
Programs regarding its investigation of her complaint against
him.

The report, dated April 25, 2011, concludes that in March

2011, he engaged in conduct toward her constituting sexual
harassment.

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order

requiring the University to suspend Chevan from his position and
barring him from being on campus while she is there.
A TRO may not be granted unless it is necessary to prevent
irreparable harm.

Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special

Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2010).
Irreparable harm is “injury that is neither remote nor
speculative, but actual and imminent and that cannot be remedied
by an award of monetary damages.”

Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 162 F.3d

56, 61 (2d Cir. 1998)(internal quotation marks omitted).

In

addition, the applicant usually must show “either (1) likelihood
of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions
going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and
a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party
requesting the . . . relief.”
F.3d at 35.

Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 598

“While Rule 65 permits the grant of a temporary

restraining order without notice, such an order, as is indicated
by the very word ‘restraining,’ should issue only for the purpose
of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm and
for just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing.”

Warner

Bros. Inc. v. Dae Rim Trading, Inc., 877 F.2d 1120, 1124 (2d Cir.
1989).
The TRO requested in this case would dramatically alter the
status quo.

If the order were granted, Chevan would be suspended

from his position and barred from the campus.

Because the TRO

would alter the status quo in these significant respects, it
cannot be issued unless the prerequisites to temporary injunctive
relief are clearly satisfied.

They are not.

Plaintiff argues

that violation of her right to an educational environment free of
harassment constitutes irreparable harm.

But she has not shown

that harassment is ongoing and thus has failed to demonstrate
that the requested TRO is necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
In addition, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the TRO is
necessary to bring the University into compliance with Title IX.
Title IX imposes liability on a university for failing to
adequately respond to sexual harassment of a student by a
professor if the university’s response is clearly unreasonable in
light of known circumstances.

Papelino v. Albany Coll. of

Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff cites no authority indicating that in the circumstances
alleged here a university violates Title IX unless it suspends
the professor and bars him from campus.

Finally, assuming for

present purposes that plaintiff’s Title IX claim raises a fair
ground for litigation, she has not demonstrated that the balance
of hardships tips decidedly in her favor.

She states, “If

Defendant Chevan is permitted to remain on campus, I will
continue to suffer academically, and I will bear the fear of
encountering him while on the property.”

Plaintiff’s statement

reflects legitimate concerns but is insufficient to sustain her
burden of justifying the extraordinary TRO she has requested.
Accordingly, the application for a TRO is hereby denied.
So ordered this 23rd day of January 2012.

_________/s/ RNC____________
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge