The Court, therefore, dismisses Plaintiffs Title VII claim
since that claim does not allege discrimination in terms or
conditions of his employment but rather discrimination against
him in his role as a student.
B. Title IX Claim
Since the alleged discriminatory action involved the provision
of educational services, the Court will consider Plaintiffs
Title IX claim.*fn10 The Court notes that courts in this
Circuit, and others, analyze Title IX claims under the Title VII
framework. See, e.g., Murray v. New York Univ. Coll. of
Dentistry, 57 F.3d 243, 248 (2d Cir. 1995); Lipsett v. Univ.
of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 896-97 (1st Cir. 1988).
To prove a prima facie case under Title IX, Plaintiff must
simply show that he was excluded from participation, denied the
benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in an educational
program, that the program receives federal assistance, and that
the exclusion was on the basis of his sex.*fn11 See Stilley
v. University of Pittsburgh, 968 F. Supp. 252, 265 (W.D.
Plaintiff alleges discrimination on the basis that he is a
male. He claims that, had he been a female, Defendants would
have given him the opportunity to take the examination in
writing, would have given him a different committee on the third
examination, or would have permitted him to take a course to
make up for any deficiencies in his understanding of the
materials. Viewing Plaintiffs amended complaint in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff, see Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 236, 94
S.Ct. 1683, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has "allege[d]
events that, if proven, would support an inference of
discrimination." Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709, 715-16
(2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). The Court, therefore, denies
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Title IX claim.
C. New York Human Rights Law Claim
To the extent that Plaintiff raises a claim under New York's
Human Rights Law regarding the adverse educational decision, the
Court will allow this claim to proceed along with Plaintiffs
Title IX claim. See Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp.,
159 F.3d 759, 764-65 (2d Cir. 1998) (analyzing claims under § 296 of the
New York Human Rights Law under the same standards used for
Title VII and, therefore, Title IX claims). Plaintiff may not,
however, as discussed in regards to Plaintiffs Title VII claim,
assert a cause of action under the Human Rights Law for
After carefully reviewing the file, the parties' submissions
and oral arguments
and the relevant law, and for the reasons stated herein and at
oral argument, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as
to Plaintiffs claim of employment discrimination under Title VII
and New York Human Rights Law but DENIED as to Plaintiffs
claim of educational discrimination under Title IX and New York
Human Rights Law; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint is
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties contact Magistrate Judge David R.
Homer within fourteen days of the date of this Order to schedule
a Rule 16 conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.