Filed Date: Jan. 31, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) for allegedly conducting a biased misconduct proceeding against a Jewish student, suspending her after a flyer-related incident while ignoring purported anti-semitic threats and policy violations by others. Other cases involving universities’ responses to speech and activity concerning Israel and Palestine, including matters involving antisemitism and/or anti-Palestinian expression, can be found here.
On January 31, 2025, a Jewish student at FIT filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the institution. The plaintiff asserted claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York Executive Law § 296 et seq., New York Civil Rights Law § 40 et seq., N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, breach of contract, due process, and retaliation. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, expungement of her disciplinary record, and attorneys’ fees. The case was assigned to Judge John P. Cronan.
In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged FIT violated Title VI by intentionally discriminating against her as a Jewish student, suspending her for responding to anti-semitic, anti-Israel flyers, while failing to discipline other students or address threats against her. She contended that FIT’s deliberate indifference and uneven enforcement of university policies created a hostile educational environment and denied her equal access to educational benefits. The complaint also brought state law discrimination claims, citing FIT’s alleged failure to prevent or address anti-semitic harassment. Additionally, it asserted breach of contract for FIT’s failure to follow its own policies and to provide fair disciplinary procedures, a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim arising from her immediate suspension without sufficient notice or opportunity to be heard, and a retaliation claim for suspending her in response to her complaints about anti-semitic harassment.
On February 1, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe.” The court granted the motion on February 4, 2025, but indicated it might revisit the issue after FIT appeared in the action.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 21, 2025. The revised complaint added claims for retaliation under Title VI, New York Executive Law § 296, New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107(7), and the FIT Code of Conduct, as well as claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). The amended complaint also substantially expanded the existing due process claims, including detailed allegations regarding procedural violations and comparative treatment of students. It also explicitly incorporated Section 1983 claims against FIT as a government actor.
On April 3, 2025, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to appear anonymously and ordered her to file an amended complaint using her real name (2025 WL 1000927). The plaintiff moved for reconsideration on April 17, 2025, but the court denied this request on July 11, 2025, finding she had not identified any controlling law or facts overlooked in the original decision (2025 WL 1920065). The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On August 19, 2025, she requested a stay pending appeal, which the court denied on November 6, 2025, concluding there was no reason to believe its refusal to permit anonymous litigation would likely be overturned (2025 WL 3102351). However, on December 12, 2025, the court of appeals ordered that, to the extent the appellant requested a temporary stay pending review by a three-judge panel, the motion was granted and was referred to the panel on an expedited basis.
Separately, on May 23, 2025, FIT filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that all claims were, in substance, challenges to her suspension and therefore could only be brought in an Article 78 proceeding, which was then barred by the statute of limitations. FIT further contended that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege discrimination or retaliation under Title VI or relevant state laws, arguing she was suspended for violating the Code of Conduct, not because of her Jewish identity. FIT also argued that the breach of contract, due process, and emotional distress claims failed because no specific contractual process was breached, because post-deprivation remedies were available, and because the alleged conduct was not extreme or outrageous.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Dahlia Gottlieb (3/16/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69602943/parties/doe-v-fashion-institute-of-technology/
Cronan, John Peter (New York)
Israelovitch, Lauren (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69602943/doe-v-fashion-institute-of-technology/
Last updated Feb. 24, 2026, 10:43 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Title VI Anti-Palestinian/Antisemitism cases
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 31, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Jewish student at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT).
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Fashion Institute of Technology
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Other Dockets:
Southern District of New York 1:25-cv-00950
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 25-01761
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Religion(s):
Case Summary of Doe v. Fashion Institute of Technology, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47310/ (last updated 3/16/2026).