## Facts

- Five women associated with Yale (current or former students) alleged that Yale’s failure to address sexual harassment by faculty and administrators, and its lack of a formal grievance process, constituted sex discrimination under Title IX and federal regulations.
- The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief (not damages), including an order requiring Yale to implement a court-supervised mechanism to receive, investigate, and adjudicate sexual-harassment complaints.
- Allegations included: harassment or assault by staff; a “quid pro quo” allegation that an instructor offered a higher grade in exchange for sexual compliance; and asserted harm from the absence of any effective institutional complaint process.
- The district court dismissed the claims of four plaintiffs (for lack of standing and/or failure to state a claim) and tried only the individual claim of Pamela Price.
- The district court denied class certification and entered judgment for Yale after finding Price failed to prove the alleged harassment.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals, denial of class certification, evidentiary rulings, and denial of injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether each plaintiff alleged a concrete, personal injury sufficient for Article III standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief under Title IX.
2. Whether alleged sexual harassment and the absence of “prompt and equitable” grievance procedures could constitute sex discrimination under Title IX and its implementing regulations.
3. Whether the trial record supported a finding of actionable harassment as to the remaining plaintiff sufficient to justify institution-wide injunctive relief.
4. Whether the district court properly denied class certification and made challenged evidentiary rulings.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Yale.
- The court held that four plaintiffs lacked standing or otherwise failed to allege the individualized injury necessary to maintain their claims for prospective relief.
- As to Price, the court upheld the district court’s finding that she did not prove the alleged sexual harassment.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s credibility assessments or evidentiary rulings.
- Because no named plaintiff established a proven violation, the court upheld denial of class certification and declined to order Yale to implement court-supervised grievance procedures.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff seeking declaratory or injunctive relief must show a concrete, personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct; generalized objections to institutional conditions are insufficient for standing.
- Title IX prohibits sex-based exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination in federally funded education programs; sexual harassment may constitute actionable sex discrimination when adequately proved.
- Implementing regulations requiring “prompt and equitable” grievance procedures may inform an institution’s obligations, but court-ordered, institution-wide relief requires a proven violation affecting a plaintiff with standing.
- Appellate courts generally defer to trial-level credibility determinations and factual findings absent clear error, and will not disturb discretionary evidentiary rulings without prejudicial error.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit left Yale’s judgment intact, concluding that most plaintiffs lacked standing and that the only tried claim failed on proof, which foreclosed class certification and broad injunctive relief compelling Yale to adopt specific sexual-harassment grievance procedures.


Alexander v. Yale Univ., 631 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1980)