Canaan v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251144 (December 5, 2025) W. Scott Hardy.
Judges: W. Scott Hardy, United States District Judge.
Canaan’s Complaint alleges that CMU harbors a culture of antisemitism, that certain of its professors and administrators intentionally discriminated against her and harassed her because she is Jewish and of Israeli descent, and that they were deliberately indifferent to her concerns about such discriminatory mistreatment and retaliated against her. Canaan initially asserted claims against CMU for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, along with claims for breach of its own policies and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).
Canaan seeks to amend her Complaint principally based on newly discovered evidence that Heading-Grant surreptitiously recorded a meeting with her and Professor Arscott that was held on November 2, 2022. CMU produced this recording to Canaan on August 1, 2025.
The Court concludes that Canaan acted diligently and there is good cause in this specific instance to modify the Court’s deadline for amending pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
In the Court’s estimation, Canaan’s proposed IIED and Wiretap Act claims are supported by plausible, well-pled, factual averments and therefore are not futile.
Canaan alleges that Heading-Grant intentionally used an electronic device to record their private meeting with Professor Arscott on November 2, 2022, without her knowledge or consent. Nonetheless, CMU contends that the Wiretap Act claim is futile because Canaan’s proposed amendments pertaining to Heading-Grant’s conduct are devoid of factual averments that CMU directed Heading-Grant to record the meeting and thus fails to establish respondeat superior liability.
Canaan’s proposed Amended Complaint avers that Heading-Grant intentionally recorded their private meeting surreptitiously without Canaan’s knowledge or consent, that as CMU’s Chief Diversity Officer, she was the senior administrator responsible for supporting students and protecting them from discrimination, that she interacted with Professor Arscott and other DEI related administrators regarding Canaan’s complaints, and that she took responsibility for arranging and then facilitating this specific meeting with Canaan and Professor Arscott.
These averments and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, including adverse
inferences that may be drawn from Heading-Grant invoking her right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, plainly support a plausible respondeat superior claim against CMU under the Wiretap Act. That claim is not futile as pled.
As with her Wiretap Act claim, to plead a plausible IIED claim pursuant to a respondeat superior theory, Canaan must allege facts showing that such conduct “‘is of a kind and nature that the employee is employed to perform; … occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; [and] is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer….'” McClain, 57 F.Supp. 3d at 441 (quoting Costa v. Roxborough Memorial Hosp., 708 A.2d 490, 493 (Pa. Super.Ct. 1998)). In her initial Complaint, Canaan inadequately pled that such conduct, predominantly committed by Professor Arscott, was “actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.” Canaan cures such deficiencies this time by adding many particularized averments about conduct undertaken by several important CMU administrators at times, in places, and of a kind and nature they each are employed to perform, all in service to CMU.
Importantly, Canaan alleges additional factual averments concerning Heading-Grant’s
surreptitious recording of their meeting with Professor Arscott that supports a respondeat superior claim for the same reasons described above in relation to the Wiretap Act claim. Accordingly, the IIED claim is not futile as pled.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Yael Canaan’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
• Complaint alleged CMU harbors a culture of antisemitism
• Plaintiff tried to amend the complaint after discovery to fill the details
• The amendment was principally based on newly discovered evidence of a surreptitiously recorded meeting
• The Court found that the plaintiff acted diligently
• The proposed emotional distress and wiretap claims are support by plausible, well-pled factual averments and are not futile.
• The surreptitiously recording of conversations, alleged to have aided the administration, which shows vicarious liability.
• Vicarious Liability can be shown in a Civil Rights case.
• Respondeat Superior applies in the emotional distress and wiretap claim.
