Catholic College Sued by Student over Roommate’s Sexual Behavior

03/12/12

Now this might seem ludicrous, but it’s not, and the fact that a court in Massachusetts allowed the case to be filed shows prima facie causes of action are present. And if one goes through the story, there are elements that require explanation and strongly stink of bias, or at the very least lack of concern for the welfare of the complaining student.


In the case of Lindsay Blankmeyer v. Stonehill College, Inc. admitted to United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, several issues have been brought into question. While, superficially, the case may seem trifling, the decisions can affect dormitory rules and accommodation principles of students.

The plaintiff has alleged that the college administration was insensitive to the plaintiff’s needs and refused to provide reasonable accommodation to the plaintiff, but seemed adamant that the plaintiff’s roommate’s sexual behavior, sex without permission of roommate and video sex sessions should continue, and the plaintiff be denied reasonable single accommodation that she sought to shelter herself from such depredations.

In a nutshell, the plaintiff complains that despite her well-known depressive conditions (clinically supported), the college refused single accommodation to her on the grounds that her roommate was behaving inappropriately, was having sex in front of her within the room and without her permission, was having video sex, and was misbehaving with her upon protest. The subsequent actions of college authorities, if proved, show that there was blatant disregard for the concerns raised by the student, and in spite of the acts complained against being in breach of rules of the Catholic institution, the concerned authorities acted bluntly and allowed such activities to continue to the prejudice of the complainant.

In fact, according to the filed complaint, the authorities exhibited behavior that compounded the mental pressures on the complainant in as much as, even after being a Catholic institution, they seemed to extend moral support to the rule-breaking actions of the complainant’s roommate and denied the complainant of reasonable accommodation that was within it powers to give, but kept offering other alternatives to the student that would be deemed unacceptable by any reasonable person, given the circumstances.

All of these happened, despite the college authorities being aware from the time of admission of the complainant that the complainant suffered from severe depressions and was under treatment for the same. It happened despite the complainant’s roommate engaging in behavior that was not permissible under the regulations of the college which is a Catholic institution, and funded likewise.

The story shows that the plaintiff, despite being in depressive conditions, complied with all legal requirements and formal procedures of the College, including approach and information to several relevant authorities in due and proper time and established procedures. However, the college failed to respond and effectually ignored the plaintiff’s pleas. The plaintiff went into depression, could not complete her final term at college within time due to depression and accompanying treatment, and later completed graduation after her classmates had already graduated. This put the plaintiff at further disadvantages in her career as her time of graduation became significantly different from that of her regular graduating class.