From today's decision by Judge Gerald McHugh (E.D. Pa.) in Landau v. Corp. of Haverford College:
[A] litany of complaints related in a general way to the same subject—in this instance the serious problem of antisemitism—is not the same thing as a legally cognizable complaint pled in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure….
Plaintiffs Jews at Haverford, Alumni Ally Landau, and two anonymous students … allege that over the past year, Haverford College … has become a bastion of antisemitism that is tolerated and at times perpetuated by the College. Plaintiffs contend that they have been personally affected by the eruption of disorder on campus. Specifically, they state that they have lost friends, faced harassment, been forced to change their routines, and missed out on seminal Haverford experiences because of escalated antisemitism. They assert that antisemitism at Haverford has fostered a hostile educational environment in violation of Title VI, and that Haverford has breached certain contractual obligations by failing to deal with campus unrest.
At this stage, a court would typically review the relevant facts. I cannot cogently do so here due to the sprawling and disorganized character of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which appears to detail every frustration and disagreement of Jewish students and faculty that has occurred at Haverford over the last year. It spills pages of ink on lengthy frolics about events on other college campuses and about ideological debates. Rather than isolating instances of harassment and logically relating them to the elements of a hostile environment claim, Plaintiffs set forth a running list of grievances that reads more as an opinion editorial than it does a legal complaint.
Some of the instances alleged are concerning, and if pled properly, could perhaps support a cognizable legal claim under Title VI. Yet, the Complaint is diluted by instances that no reasonable person could construe as intentional discrimination. For example, Plaintiffs contend that Haverford did not announce the month of May as "American Jewish History Month," and instead only celebrated "Asian American/Pacific Islander Month." Or, Plaintiffs complain that some graduating students at the Spring 2024 commencement donned attire that signified their support for Palestinians—a classic example of protected First Amendment expression. Elsewhere, Plaintiffs include comments made by a professor who does not even attend Haverford. As a result of Plaintiffs' scattered pleading, any serious allegations of actionable discrimination are buried as needles within a haystack of distraction.
