RUNNING HEAD: CASE LAW ANALYSIS 1

Case Law Analysis: Levin v. Yeshiva University

De’Andre Jones

Andréa Solis

Seattle University
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 2

Case Law Analysis: Levin v. Yeshiva University

Facts & Issues

The issue at hand is that Levin and Jones were not offered the housing they desired at

Yeshiva University but by taking that offer they would be separating themselves from their

partners. The housing they wished to live in was reserved specifically for students in their

programs and the families (spouses and children) at a more affordable rate than the surrounding

housing options (Kaplin, 2014). Levin and Jones claimed that they were denied the housing they

applied for based on discrimination of their sexual orientation. This discrimination would violate

Title IX which states that no US citizen will be denied benefits or subjected to discrimination

under any educational program that receives federal funding based on their sex. Since they were

denied university housing, Levin and Jones claimed that Yeshiva University were violating this

no discrimination law and should be granted housing in accordance with Title IX. With the

university upholding their only offer, Levin and Jones were forced to find housing elsewhere

with their partners that was more expensive. The second issue was that at this time in US history,

marriage was only legal for one man and one women, not same-sex partners. Being that Levin

and Jones were not married and could not be married allowed them to argue that they were being

discriminated against based on their marital status.

Rule of Law

Levin and Jones said their claim for discrimination by the university also violated the

New York State Roommate Law. This law stated that tenants could live with spouses, their

children or with a friend(s) of the tenant’s choosing. But denying them the opportunity to choose

their own roommates and by ignoring their partnership, they argued that they university was

breaking this law and the New York City’s Human Rights Law. “The Law prohibits

discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on race, color, creed,
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 3

age, national origin, alienage or citizenship status, gender (including gender identity and sexual

harassment), sexual orientation disability, marital status and partnership status” (Fight for

Justice). The Plaintiffs first took this case to a trial court who rejected all of their claims stating

that in New York, landlords were permitted to “recognize the intuition of arraign and distinguish

between married and unmarried couples” (Kaplin, 2014). The trial court stated that there was no

case because the students were not denied housing. Instead they were offered a place and were

given the same decision as other non-married heterosexual couples. The court also stated that the

medical school at Yeshiva University was not to blame for the same-sex couple not being able to

be married and should not have to honor domestic partnerships (Kaplin, 2014). When the

Plaintiffs appealed their first time through the appellate court, the court’s ruling was the same.

However, when Levin and Jones appealed to the highest court in New York, the court agreed

with their cause of action and stated that the housing policy was discriminating against same-sex

partnerships which violated only the New York City’s Human Rights Law, not the New York

Roommate Law.

Critical Race Theory & Cultural Wealth

This case illuminates systemic issues and inequality in higher education due to non-

inclusive housing policies. While there are institutions who place social justice and equity at the

forefront of their practice, there are others who are granted exemptions based on previous

negotiations and cater to the needs of what the system deems to be the majority. Critical Race

Theory tells us that a commitment to social justice offers a transformative response to racial,

gender and class oppression. (Matsuda, 1991). It also challenges institutions to consider the

social and navigational capital that students of marginalized identities experience throughout

their lives. (Yosso, 2005). It is important for institutions to critically consider the impact that
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 4

their policies can have on the various student populations that they serve, but also to provide

adequate resources so that the students are able to seek support, and create allies on campus who

will advocate for them when they are not in a position to do so themselves.

LGBTQA History

While same-sex marriage is legal [at the moment] in the United States, it was not until

recently that these couples were give the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages. When

President Clinton was in office 10 years prior to this case, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act

stating that marriage would only be recognized as one man and one women and mentioned that

no state was required to acknowledge same-sex marriages from outside of their state (Wolf,

2015). In 2000, Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions which was allowed

under the Defense of Marriage Act due to the fact that each state had the option of recognizing

these unions if they chose to, but it still did not require other states to recognize that union. Civil

unions are legally recognizing as partnership in the specific state but does not grant couples all

the same rights of marriage such as: federal rights, protections, or benefits (What is a Civil

Union). In 2004, Massachusetts was the first state to not only recognize civil unions, but they

legalize same-sex marriages allowing these couples the same rights as all other marriages within

the state of Massachusetts (Wolf, 2015). Seven years later in 2011, New York became the largest

state to legalize same-sex marriages by passing the Marriage Equality Act. Most recently on June

26, 2015, the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages thought out the country granting

same-sex couple all federal rights of heterosexual marriages (Wolf, 2015). While some states

still attempt to ban these couples in a variety of ways, it is legal at this time for same-sex couples

to experience everything marriage has to offer. The reasoning behind the decision of this

particular case would no longer be accepted today but with the case of Levin v. Yeshiva
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 5

University, it is unfortunate for this case to happen in 2009, before same-sex marriages were

legal in New York and the country.

Case Law 1

With same-sex marriages becoming legal and more students identifying as non-binary

genders, universities all over the country are starting to reorganize how they offer housing to

these students. In fall 2015, the University of Minnesota became the first institution in the state

to offer gender-neutral housing at their Twin Cities campus (Friedrich, 2013). Traditionally,

institutions have offered either gender specific or co-ed housing with co-ed meaning rooms for

men and rooms for women within the same hall but not mixing genders within a single room.

Gender-neutral housing is the idea that gender would not play a role when assigning housing to

students with the caveat being that students will need to opt-in for this housing assignment by

disclosing their gender identity with the university. This housing policy would be offered to

student at a sophomore standing or above, excluding first year students from the option of living

in a gender-inclusive residence hall with the idea that this option would be extended to them

once the program has been established. With same-sex marriages being legalized, public

institutions are now restructuring their housing policies due to the fact that cases similar to Levin

v. Yeshiva University could be brought against them if they violate any student’s Title IX rights.

Case Law 2

Another Title XI case to consider took place at the private, Christian institution of George

Fox University in July 2014. In this case, the university made accommodations for a transgender

student named Jayce to be assigned to a single-sex apartment. However, Jayce was not allowed

to live with other male-identifying individuals due to the institutions religious affiliations. The

university defended their decision by referencing an exception to the law from 1972 which stated
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 6

that a section of the law shall not apply to an education institution which is controlled by a

religious organization if the application of the subsection would not be consistent with the

religious tenets of the organization (Ford, 2014). In the end, the case was found in favor of the

defendant, George Fox University, and the exemption allowed for the institution to discriminate

against Jayce based on sex.

Impact on Policy and Practice

With the legalization of same-sex marriages and more students expressing their gender

identity, universities are having to make adjustments to their policies and services to better

support students. The majority of current housing policies are still not gender inclusive or

provide gender neutral housing opportunities for students. There have been small wins for gender

inclusive housing opportunities for undergraduate students with the University of Minnesota

being one example. This will be the start of a new practice for universities and colleges in

creating new or revising old policies to provide more opportunities for students to feel safe in

their on-campus living space. It is important for students to feel safe and supported at their

instruction which is why student support services play a vital role during this transition of

policies. Offices such as Title IX and counseling services should be prepared to support students

with these identities.

CASE LAW ANALYSIS 7

References

Esseks, J., & Jacoby, M. (2001, July 2). 1 no. 76: Sara Levin, et al. V. Yeshiva university

et al. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from Legal Information Institute.

Fight for Justice: New Work Voices of the Civil Rights Movement (Rep.). (2009).

Retrieved February 27, 2016.

Ford, Z. (2014, July 11). How A university used A religious exemption to discriminate

against A Transgender student. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from Think

Progress.

Friedrich, A. (2013, December 27). University of Minnesota wants to offer students

gender-neutral housing. Retrieved February 27, 2017, from

http://blogs.mprnews.org/oncampus/2013/12/university-of-minnesota-wants-to-

offer-students-gender-neutral-housing/

Huynh, R. (2013, September 25). LGBTQ students need better housing options on the 40

acres - the daily Texan. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from The Daily Texan.

Jaschik, S. (2014, July 14). Two legal cases illustrate growing tensions over rights of

transgender students at Christian colleges. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from

Inside Higher Ed.

Kaplin, W. & Lee B. (2014). The law of higher education (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Levin v. Yeshiva Univ., 754 N.E.2d 1099, 96 N.Y.2d 484, 730 N.Y.S.2d 15 –

CourtListener.com. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from Court Listener.

LEVIN v. YESHIVA UNIV. (1999, March 15). Retrieved February 12, 2017, from

Leagle.
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 8

Levin v. Yeshiva University. Retrieved February 12, 2017, from New York Court of

Appeals, Legal Information Institute.

What is a Civil Union? (n.d.). Find Law. Retrieved February 27, 2017, from

http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/what-is-a-civil-union.html

Wolf, R. (2015, June 26). Timeline: Same-sex marriage through the years. Retrieved

February 27, 2017, from

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/24/same-sex-marriage-

timeline/29173703/

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of

community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.

doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006