UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
DR. JOSEPH IRRERA,
AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff,
-against-

15-cv-06381-DGL

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER and
DR. DOUGLAS HUMPHERYS, individually
Defendant,
-----------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, DR. JOSEPH IRRERA as and for his Amended Complaint, by his undersigned
attorney, alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action against the University of Rochester (hereinafter “Rochester”) for the
inappropriate actions of a faculty member who unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff when he
was sexually harassed and refused the sexual advances of a professor (quid pro quo),
complained about discrimination and sexual harassment and was retaliated against by
Defendant. Plaintiff seeks to have this Court find that Rochester and Defendant Humpherys
violated federal and state law prohibiting retaliation against those who complain about the
harassment.
JURISDICTION
2. This court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
This court’s supplemental jurisdiction is also invoked.

1

 PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Joseph Irrera was residing at 85 Shale Drive, Rochester, New York 14615 while he
was pursuing a Doctor of Musical Arts Degree at Eastman School of Music at the University
of Rochester.
4. Defendant, University of Rochester, is a licensed educational institution that educates both
undergraduate and graduate students. The Eastman School of Music is located at 26 Gibbs
Street, Rochester, NY 14604. Defendant Humpherys is a Professor at the Eastman School of
Music and was acting on behalf of the Defendant University of Rochester and individually at
all times relevant in the complaint.
FACTUAL STATEMENT
5. In the Fall 2000, Plaintiff initially attended the Eastman School of Music for his Bachelor’s
Degree in Piano Performance and graduated in the Spring 2005 with a Bachelor of Music in
Piano Performance. While an undergraduate student at Eastman, Plaintiff studied with
Defendant Humphreys for the first three years. He was plaintiff’s private piano teacher
providing a one hour lesson per week and had a studio class for three hours per week. Plaintiff
grades were primarily based on Plaintiff’s performance. Plaintiff received a grade of A from
Humpherys in each semester (for a total of six grades of A, the highest possible grade) for the
first three years as undergraduate student at Eastman. Thereafter, Plaintiff took one year off
on an approved leave of absence and studied in France at the Moulin d’Ande, and in Frankfurt,
Germany with Irina Edelstein- a well respected pianist who has performed with the Berlin
Symphony Orchestra, Hungarian Symphony Orchestra, and recorded with BBC among her
many accomplishments. Plaintiff came back to Eastman and completed his last year with Anne
2

 Koscielny in which he received an A minus.
6. Dr. Irrera began an internship at the Eastman Community Music School (ECMS) in October
of 2017. At this time, he was not in any degree program at Eastman but had finished his
Master’s Degree at the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore in May 2007 and was taking
private lessons with Natalya Antonova (Eastman Piano Professor) to prepare for his upcoming
Doctor of Music Arts (DMA) auditions. Plaintiff received a GPA 3.53 at Peabody
Conservatory. Plaintiff completed the two year program in one and half years.
7. In 2007, Dean Howard Potter (who is still the current Dean of the ECMS) recruited Dr. Irrera
for the position of piano intern. The rate for non-DMA interns at the time was $23/hour. When
Dr. Irrera eventually enrolled at Eastman in 2009, he was then given the DMA internship at
rate of $24/hour.
8. Defendant Humpherys is in total control of the admission and evaluation process at the
Eastman Piano Department. For example, when Dr. Irrera applied to Eastman for the DMA
program, he wanted to study with Eastman piano professor, Natalya Antonova. Antonova
believed Plaintiff should gain admission into the Eastman DMA program based on his
performing abilities. However, she advised Dr. Irrera that he would not gain admission without
stating on his application form that his first teacher preference was Defendant Humpherys.
Thus, Dr. Irrera indicated that Dr. Humpherys was his first preference and he was thereafter
accepted into the program. Another example is AM 1 that applied in two consecutive years and
was denied admission despite the fact that other Eastman faculty members were of the opinion
that her performances were at a high enough level to gain admission into the DMA program

1

Initials are being used to protect the privacy of the student
3

 but the admission was blocked by Humpherys. Upon information and belief, AM was advised
to take lessons with Humpherys which she did for
about year and then gained admission into the program. In addition, it well known in the
academic and music community that Humpherys is extremely well connected in the music
and academic community.
9. In the Fall 2009, Plaintiff Irrera commenced the Doctor of Musical Arts Degree program at
Eastman School of Music in the studio of Defendant Douglas Humpherys.
10. Plaintiff while a student at the Eastman School of Music was honored by Steinway and Sons
Pianos by becoming a Steinway Artist in April 2013 and was signed by one of the country's
premiere artist management companies, Parker Artists Management. In addition, Plaintiff has
performed while still a student at Eastman at Carnegie Hall twice (but has performed a total
of three times at Carnegie Hall- April 2009, March 2012 and February 2013), performing for
the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra as a guest soloist at the age of 18 performing
Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 2, one of the most difficult piano concertos to perform live
in May 2000 and has performed in countless competitions, placing first nine times, placing
second four times and placing third and with special prizes six times. Upon information and
belief, Plaintiff is also the only person to achieve these distinct honors while a student at
Eastman, especially becoming a Steinway Artist. 2

2

A summary of Dr. Irerra’s distinguished accomplishments that occurred while not being taught by
Dr Humphrey are as follows:
First Place finishes are from a through i:
a. American Protégé International Piano and String Duo Competition – New York, NY-February 2012
4

 11. Up until April 2010, Plaintiff was given private lessons, one to one, once a week for an hour
by Defendant Humpherys and also attended a studio class once a week for approximately three
to four hours that was taught by Defendant Humpherys. During this period of time, Plaintiff

b. American Protégé International Piano Competition – New York, NY-- March 2009
c. MTNA Young Artist State (Maryland) Piano Competition – Baltimore, MD-- October 2006
d. MTNA Young Artist State (Maryland) Piano Competition – Baltimore, MD-- October 2005
e. Rochester Philharmonic Youth Orchestra Concerto Competition – Rochester, NY--May 2000
f. State University of New York at Geneseo Young Artist Piano Competition – Geneseo,
NY-- February 2000
g. Penfield Symphony Orchestra Young Artist Piano Competition – Penfield, NY--January 2000
h. Rochester Philharmonic Young Artist Piano Concerto Ranlet Award – Rochester, NY-March 1999
i.

John and Emily Castle Scholarship from The Rochester Philharmonic – Rochester, NY-March 1999

j.

Second Place: Bradshaw and Buono International Piano Competition – New York, NY-- October
2007; Varna International Piano Competition – Varna, Bulgaria-- May 2005; Guthman
International Piano Competition – Atlanta, GA-- February 2005; State University of New York at
Geneseo Young Artist Piano Competition –Geneseo, NY-- February 1999;

k. Third Place and Special Prizes:Bradshaw and Buono International Piano Competition (Honorable
Mention) – NY, NY-- June 2006; International Piano Competition (3rd Place) – Moulin d’Ande,
France-- August 2005; Young Artist’s International Piano Competition (3rd Place) – Washington
D.C.-- June 2005; International Piano Competition
(Special Prize) – Moulin d’Ande, France-August 2004; Eastman School of Music Young Artist International Piano Competition (Finalist) –
Rochester, NY-- July 2000; Eastman School of Music Young Artist International Piano
Competition (Finalist)
– Rochester, NY -- July 1999
Finally, Plaintiff’s recordings are frequently aired on classical music stations across the country.
Most recently on WXXI Rochester and WCNY Syracuse. He has also been featured on Rochester
91.5FM (WXXI Rochester) several times for live broadcasted performances. These occurred in May
1998, September 2012, and October 2012.
5

 received only very positive feedback from Defendant Humpherys telling Plaintiff that he was
doing fantastic and Plaintiff also heard from Instructor Kuznetov how well plaintiff was
performing. During the first semester, Plaintiff received the letter grade A (the highest grade
attainable at Eastman) in piano lessons taught by Humpherys, an A in German Lied Class
(considered the most difficult course at Eastman) and a grade of A- in Keyboard Continuo
Realization.
12. In April 2010, Defendant Humpherys made sexual advances toward Plaintiff Irrera. The sexual
advances culminated in inappropriately touching Plaintiff Irrera for an extended period of time
lasting four to five minutes. Defendant Humpherys caressed Dr. Irrera’s shoulder and rubbed
his hands up and down Plaintiff Irrera’s arms for a prolonged period of time, approximately
four minutes while sitting at the piano. Defendant Humpherys also leaned into him so that his
penis and crotch was against Dr. Irrera’s back and Defendant Humpherys seemed to be
aroused. This was not to correct Plaintiff Irrera’s posture but was obviously sexual in nature.
Plaintiff Irrera was so uncomfortable that he was forced to ask Defendant Humpherys to stop.
In fact, Nelita True (a Professor at Eastman and very close confident of Humpherys) told
Plaintiff Irrera that Defendant Humpherys was “in love” with him.
13. Plaintiff Irrera rejected Defendant Humpherys’ sexual advances.
14. Due to rejecting Defendant Humpherys’ sexual advances, Plaintiff was retaliated against by
Defendant Humpherys in a deliberate, continuous, willful retaliatory conduct through much of
the remaining time that Dr. Irrera remained at Eastman as set forth below.
15. In the program, the students are required to perform two solo recitals referred to as Doctor of
Musical Arts (DMA) recitals, a lecture recital choosing a classical work and discussing its
6

 historical significance and then performing the classical piece, and the fourth recital is a
collaborative recital that entails performing chamber music.
16. The importance of the solo recital cannot be overstated. The solo recital is a critical element
not just in the Eastman program but to secure future employment in a University setting.
Because of the importance of the recital on a student’s academic and professional career, a
student at Eastman will not be given a green light to perform the recital unless the Professor
providing lessons to the student has assessed the student’s progress and is convinced that the
student will succeed at his/her recital. It should be further noted that a grade of the less than
A- in the student’s primary instrument is considered a failing grade by his peers and
prospective employers.
17. In the Spring 2011, Plaintiff Irrera performed his first Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) recital.
18. Once a student is ready for the DMA recital, the teacher allows the student to give their recital.
The DMA recital is only scheduled once the professors in their judgment believes the student
is ready. Leading up to this recital, during Plaintiff private lessons, Defendant Humpherys
repeatedly told Plaintiff Irrera that he was ready to perform his recital. In fact, Professor
Humpherys repeatedly assured Plaintiff Irrera that he was playing well and that the recital
would go well.
19. The Eastman piano Department requires that three faculty members sit on the jury panel for
recitals. However, despite this rule, frequently, the jury only consists of two faculty members.
It is also policy of the school that the primary teacher sits among the jury panel for the recital.
20. In April 2011, Plaintiff Irrera performed his recital on the recommendation of Defendant
Humpherys, as is the procedure of the school, however, Plaintiff Irrera received a failing grade
7

 at this recital. (Recitals are pass/fail.) This failure was in direct retaliation for rejecting
Humpherys’ sexual advances.
21. Upon information and belief, once a student is recommended by the primary teacher to be
ready for one’s recital, a student at Eastman has never received a failing grade at his recital.
22. Subsequent to the recital, Plaintiff Irrera was told by Alla Kuznetsov (another Eastman piano
teacher) that walking into that recital, Humpherys told her “it will not go well.” However,
Plaintiff Irrera performed the recital at the same level (or better) than he performed at the dress
rehearsal as well as during the last two lessons with Humpherys.
23. Alla Kuznetsov who witnessed the recital but was not on the jury stated that in her opinion
Plaintiff Irrera played well enough to certainly pass. However, Humpherys deliberately failed
him in retaliation for refusing to have a relationship with him.
24. Humpherys had assured Plaintiff Irrera after this failing recital that it is not uncommon for a
DMA pianist to fail a recital and that he should not be upset. This was a patently false
statement. It is extraordinary after a Professor formed an opinion that the student is ready for
the first recital, that the student would then fail any recital.
25. Thereafter, in preparation to perform the recital again, Plaintiff Irrera continued to take lessons
with Defendant Humpherys. Throughout the lessons, Plaintiff Irrera was encouraged that
everything was coming along fine and at the final dress rehearsal just two days before the
recital he was told that “it was a go,” and that “everything would be fine.” Humpherys even
cut the final dress rehearsal short (by 20 minutes) since Plaintiff Irrera was playing so well,
and Defendant Humpherys stated he was “all set.” At this point, since Plaintiff Irrera no longer
trusted Humpherys, he recorded the lesson including the conversation.
8

 26. Plaintiff Irrera was also informed that his recital would be on November 9th (via email from
defendant Humpherys). However, notification of the recital was provided by Humpherys to
Plaintiff Irrera just 3 days earlier on November 6, 2011, despite Plaintiff Irrera consistently
asking Humpherys about the date months in advance.
27. Thus, Plaintiff for the very first time was informed of the recital, just a few days before it was
to occur. Such an abbreviated notice, is very unusual as students typically have their recital
date set months in advance. To inform someone they will perform a very important recital with
just three days notice is unprofessional, unfair, and reflects Humpherys’ retaliatory intent and
harassment towards Plaintiff Irrera. In fact, this is confirmed in an email from Humpherys to
Irrera just three days before.
28. It should also be noted that Plaintiff was extremely concerned about this delay in scheduling
his second attempt at the DMA recital.
29. However, the jury consisted of the same three individuals as the first attempt (Humpherys,
Nelita True, Barry Snyder). Plaintiff Irrera’s performance at his second recital was better than
the “dress rehearsal.” 3
30. Plaintiff Irrera, who had been playing piano for 27 years, never had a problem passing a recital
before being associated with Defendant Humpherys. Likewise, Plaintiff Irrera has not had a
problem passing a recital since being placed in a different studio other than Defendant
Humpherys’ studio. Nor has he ever had any issue or problem with any other Eastman
professor in any of his other academic and/or performing courses.

3

A recording of the “dress rehearsal” and the second recital attempt clearly reflects that the recital
was as good or superior to the dress rehearsal.
9

 31. In November 2011, to Plaintiff Irrera’s astonishment, he again failed at his second attempted
recital and was threatened with being expelled from the Eastman DMA program. Defendant
Humpherys told Plaintiff Irrera that he was not sure what his status at the school was or
whether he would be able continue with the DMA degree program. Defendant Humpherys
also stated to Plaintiff Irrera that he “would never get a university professor job.” (This
conversation is recorded). In that regard, Plaintiff had applied in the fall 2011 to SUNY at
Fredonia and obtained a reference from Professor Tony Caramia. However, Plaintiff noticed
that Professor Caramia, at the same time he agreed to provide a reference to Plaintiff, met with
Humpherys at Max’s Place a restaurant and soon thereafter, Plaintiff was advised by Caramia
that instead of providing a reference to Plaintiff to include in his application for employment
he would send it directly to Fredonia. Plaintiff did not obtain the position.
32. Plaintiff was advised by Alvin Chow, Professor of Piano at Oberlin Conservatory in 2015 that
Humpherys told him that job rate of Eastman’s DMA graduates is one hundred percent and
also advised Plaintiff that a grade B in one’s primary instrument is considered a failing grade.
33. In the same conversation when he told Plaintiff Irrera that he failed his second attempt at the
recital, he asked Defendant Humpherys about the collaborative recital that was scheduled on
December 11, 2011. Defendant Humpherys told Plaintiff Irrera that he had no idea he was
even planning on giving the collaborative recital that semester. However, this statement was
false because Humpherys was aware of the collaborative recital date. Defendant Humpherys
and Plaintiff Irrera had discussed the collaborative recital at length in the Spring semester of
2011. Furthermore, in order for Plaintiff Irrera to be permitted to schedule the December 11th
date with the Eastman Concert Office, Humpherys was required to sign the form for him to
10

 submit to the concert office. The form was submitted on April 4, 2011.
34. Upon information and belief, since Humpherys was planning to fail Plaintiff Irrera,
Humpherys never had any intention of the collaborative recital going forward on that date. It
should be noted that Humpherys was not involved at all with Plaintiff’s preparation for the
collaborative recital and never heard Plaintiff’s rehearsal for the collaborative recital prior to
the second attempt at the solo DMA recital.
35. After Plaintiff Irrera failed the solo recital the second time, Humpherys also stated that Plaintiff
Irrera sounded “like a wounded animal.” Plaintiff Irrera advised him that he would prefer to
not take lessons that semester and Humpherys angrily responded “good, I am glad you’re not
going to be in my studio this semester and that when you want to resume lessons you can feel
free to study with whomever you want.”
36. Thereafter, Plaintiff Irrera went to Antonova and told her what Humpherys had said to him
and asked her if she would take him into her studio. At first she said “no” because she thought
Humpherys was “setting a trap,” (this conversation is recorded) but Antonova finally agreed
that she would take him. However, two weeks later she informed him that she would not take
him due to “an illness” even though she accepted new students into her studio in September
2012. In this same conversation, on February 1, 2012 Antonova told Plaintiff Irrera that she
had informed Professor Snyder that Plaintiff Irrera wanted to study with him and that he was
interested in talking to Plaintiff Irrera about entering his studio (At that time, this was not true
but Plaintiff Irrera did not challenge it because he did not want to go back into Humpherys’
studio which Antonova told him would happen if he refused to go to Snyder’s studio since she
would not take Irrera into her studio. She also stated that if Irrera went back to Humpherys, he
11

 would see to it that Irrera would not finish the program. This conversation was also recorded.)
This indicates that Humpherys is feared in the Department by faculty members who are very
reluctant to appear to go against his wishes in connection with a student.
37. In the same conversation, dated February 1, 2012 Antonova told Plaintiff Irrera that if he did
go to Snyder’s studio that she and Snyder would arrange it so just the two of them would be
on his remaining jury panels and that since two jurors was typically enough for a jury panel
there would be no chance of Defendant Humpherys being on the jury. This is an admission
that she believed Humpherys could not fairly assess and grade Plaintiff. This conversation is
also recorded by Plaintiff.
38. Just three weeks after Humpherys deliberately failed Irrera, Plaintiff Irrera gave his
Collaborative DMA recital, which he prepared with his brother, a violinist and his Eastman
teacher, Zvi Zeitlin. Plaintiff Irrera passed this recital with flying colors.
39. Everyone, immediately following the collaborative recital, congratulated Joseph and John
including Zvi Zeitlin (who was John's teacher and on the collaborative jury) for a "spectacular
and fine" performance. Jean Barr (who is a member of the Eastman Piano Faculty and who
was also on the collaborative jury) expressed similar praise to both Joseph and John directly
after the concert. Defendant Humpherys however, told Plaintiff Irrera at this same time that he
could not confirm whether or not he passed since there were not enough piano faculty members
on the collaborative jury panel. This shows a continued pattern of retaliation. Humpherys
statement was not true, as the Eastman student handbook clearly states that for collaborative
recitals a jury panel can consist of faculty members from other departments.
40. In the Spring semester 2012, Plaintiff Irrera had a discussion with Humpherys (January 2012)
12

 that he would prefer not to sign up for lessons that semester and focus solely on completing
the remaining course work he had left for the Doctor of Musical Arts degree. After the spring
semester of 2012, all of the required DMA course work would be completed and Plaintiff
Irrera would only have recitals to complete his degree (four recitals are required consisting of
two solo recitals, one collaborative recital, and a lecture recital). Up to this point, Plaintiff
Irrera had successfully completed the collaborative recital.
41. It should be noted that Defendant Humpherys told Plaintiff several times that he he would
“never get a university job,” that he “sounded like a wounded animal” and that he was “not a
good pianist at all.” These utterances that were extremely disturbing to Plaintiff occurred
November 2011, January 2012. (These conversations are recorded.)
42. On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff Irrera (with his father, Dr. Joseph N. Irrera) met with Dean
Marie Rolf, regarding the fact that Plaintiff was sexually harassed by Humpherys, and that he
was retaliated against for rejecting the sexual advances of Humpherys by his deliberately
failing him at his DMA solo recitals notwithstanding that his performance should have earned
him a passing grade. Plaintiff Irrera and his father made it clear to Dr. Rolf that they felt
strongly that Defendant Humpherys was deliberately trying to destroy Plaintiff Irrera’s career
due to rejecting Defendant Humpherys’ sexual advances. (The conversation was recorded.)
43. Thereafter, on February 15, 2012, Plaintiff Irrera and Dean Rolf met at her request for an
update. She advised Plaintiff that in order to facilitate a teacher change, he needed to seek the
permission of Dean Rossi.
44. On February 22, 2012, Plaintiff had another meeting with Dean Rolf who advised Plaintiff
that she had mis-spoken and that it was Dean Fox that arranges for any teacher changes. Dr.
13

 Rolf reviewed Plaintiff’s concerns that in the future Humphreys would impact his career
because Humpherys had a significant role with Plaintiff while at Eastman. She responded that
since Humpherys is on Irrera’s transcript extensively that she would expect that future
employers would call, email or otherwise contact Humpherys to get feedback regarding
Plaintiff’s abilities to perform in his primary instrument. She stated that she received calls all
the time even though not listed as someone’s reference. She further stated that “we cannot get
him out of your life-he has been your teacher for so long.” Plaintiff Irrera also addressed the
sexual harassment and that he was sexually harassed by Humpherys, and was retaliated against
for rejecting the sexual advances by Humpherys by deliberately failing him at his DMA solo
recitals notwithstanding that his performance should have earned him a passing grade. Dr. Rolf
was also told that Defendant Humpherys told Alla Kuznetsov, as the two of them were walking
into Plaintiff’s first recital attempt (April 2011), that this recital would not go well and Joseph
would fail. Plaintiff Irrera made it clear to Dr. Rolf that he felt strongly that Defendant
Humpherys was deliberately trying to destroy his career due to rejecting Defendant
Humpherys’ sexual advances. Regarding Antonova, Dean Rolf stated I am not sure what her
(Antonova) fearfulness is about but that is beside the point and is really not my business. (The
conversation was recorded.)
45. Thereafter, on February 27, 2012, Plaintiff and his father met with Dean Donna Brink Fox and
summarized the sexual harassment and retaliation and that his preference was to be placed in
Natalya Antonova’s studio. Dean Fox stated that she would be getting back to Plaintiff.
46. Thereafter, on February 29, 2012, Plaintiff, and his father met with Kathy Sweetland,
University of Rochester Intercessor and explained the entire situation and she advised Plaintiff
14

 that he could file formal complaint.(The conversation was recorded.)
47. Thereafter, on March 7, 2012, Plaintiff met with Dean Fox, and she advised Plaintiff that she
had a meeting with Natalya Antonova and that Antonova would not take him stating that she
was too ill to take in a new student despite the fact that during this semester she continued to
take new students into her studio. In addition, for at least a couple of months, plaintiff was
unsure whether Snyder would accept him into his studio causing Plaintiff a great deal of stress.
(The conversation was recorded.)
48. Thereafter, on March 21, 2012, Plaintiff met with Dean Jamal Rossi, who was aware of
Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation and told Plaintiff that he was
probably failing because Irrera was spending to much time with his wife. Although Plaintiff
requested that Humpherys not be on his future juries, Dean Rossi said that he would not
prevent Humpherys from sitting on any of the remaining recitals. He also advised that if he
wanted to Irrera could file a complaint against Humpherys even though Humpherys could still
sit on any of Irrera’s recitals as a juror. (The conversation was recorded.)
49. Sometime thereafter, (in late March 2012) Defendant Humpherys told Plaintiff Irrera that if
he put any of these allegation in writing regarding the sexual harassment, he “would make his
life a living hell.” He repeated the threat again in approximately September 2012.
50. Due to Professor Antonova’s threat that Irrera would go back to Humpherys. Plaintiff Irrera
conferred with Professor Barry Snyder during the Spring 2012 semester, about the possibility
of returning in the Fall semester as his student.
51. For the entire 2012 school year, Plaintiff Irrera was taking private lessons with Professor
Antonova. However, there was a sudden change in late February-March 2012 when Professor
15

 Antonova started acting in a more secretive manner, because of fear of retaliation from
Defendant Humpherys. She continued to provide private lessons only under the condition that
it would have to remain top secret without Defendant Humpherys knowing about it. In fact,
Antonova would not even acknowledge knowing Plaintiff Irrera in the halls at Eastman. She
would not talk to Plaintiff Irrera in the hallway until “the coast was clear,” because she was
very concerned about retaliation from Humpherys. (This conversation is recorded.)
52. Despite Humpherys being aware of Plaintiff’s meetings with the Deans and the allegations of
sexual harassment and retaliation, due to Humpherys’s position at Eastman, he was undeterred.
In fact, he taunted Plaintiff in an inappropriate sexual manner when alone with him such as in
the elevator, passing in the hallway when nobody was around, and in the stairway. This
harassment consisted of him winking, blowing kisses, raising his eyebrows, and giving the up
and down look in a sexual way. This conduct occurred on a continuous on-going basis from
February 2012 until Irrera’s graduation and occurred at least several times a month if not more
frequently.
53. Plaintiff had complied with the policies and procedures, as set forth by the University of
Rochester, in reporting sexual harassment, in that he (1) approached the person directly and
asked that they stopped their behavior and also (2) complained to his individual department
chair, dean, director and other faculty members. The manner in which Plaintiff reported sexual
harassment was specifically within the guidelines as set forth by the University of Rochester,
in which five ways of reporting sexual harassment were outlined and the individual was
instructed to “choose the option that feels comfortable to you and that you believe is likely to
result in a positive outcome.”
16

 54. However, the Title IX procedures that were in place were wholly inadequate as the harassment
and retaliation against Plaintiff was not remedied despite his complaints. In 2011, the Office
of Civil Rights in the Department of Education sent a letter to every college and university in
the country that receives federal funding, clarifying that under Title IX colleges and
universities had an obligation to prevent and respond to sexual violence and harassment, and
specifically, “Once a school knows or reasonably should know of possible sexual violence, it
must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what
occurred.” In the instant matter, Defendant University of Rochester failed their obligation
under Title IX.
55. Further, upon information and belief, on or about May 26, 2015, under the authority granted
to it under Title IX and its implementing regulation, the U.S. Department of Education Office
for Civil Rights (“OCR”) initiated an investigation into Rochester’s handling of complaints of
sexual assault/violence and sexual harassment under its various procedures for a period of
years. This investigation was triggered by a student’s complaint about the way that the
university handled her charge of sexual assault Upon information and belief the investigation
is still ongoing.
56. In March of 2012 (only a few months after being failed the 2nd time and almost expelled from
Eastman), Plaintiff Irrera won the American Protégée International Competition and
performed at Carnegie Hall. This was his second time performing at Carnegie Hall (his debut
was in April 2009). He was also invited back for a 3rd Carnegie Hall performance in 2013 by
Mid America Productions.
57. In the Fall 2012, Plaintiff Irrera began studying with Professor Barry Snyder. After working
17

 with Plaintiff Irrera for a short period of time, Professor Snyder told Irrera that he was “already
a fine and well established pianist.” (This conversation was recorded). Professor Snyder
consistently maintained the position that weekly lessons for Plaintiff Irrera were not necessary,
and were a waste of time and money as Plaintiff did not need them. Professor Snyder
concluded that Plaintiff was being “forced” to take them and quipped that he “could take
lessons” from Irrera. As a result, they met infrequently while Plaintiff Irrera was his student.
58. The Deans would not assure Plaintiff Irrera that Defendant Humpherys would not be on any
of his future juries. Mr. Snyder on the other hand informed Plaintiff Irrera on several occasions
that he would try to arrange it so Humpherys would not sit on a future jury, in a tacit admission
that Humpherys could not sit on Plaintiff’s jury and be impartial. Humpherys never ended up
being on any of Plaintiff’s future juries, and Plaintiff Irrera passed each one of his recitals
(“Sailed through”).
59. In the Spring 2013, Plaintiff Irrera attempted to arrange his Lecture Recital which required to
have Professor Snyder and Professor Greitzer (music theory ) and another faculty member
present. However, due to the schedule of the Professors, the only available dates were after
May 6, 2013, the last day of the semester. (Plaintiff was seeking May 8, 9 or 10 to have his
recital) As a result, Plaintiff was required to seek permission from Dean Rolf to have his recital
after the last day of school. Permission to do so is typically granted because other students
were given permission that semester ( JM-recital on May 7, 2013 and BC on May 10, 2013).
Dean Rolf in a deliberate retaliatory act stated that she would only allow one extra day, for
Plaintiff, that being May 7, 2013, This conversation took place on April 4, 2013 and was
recorded. This was extremely upsetting since if the recital did not occur, Plaintiff would be
18

 required to repeat his entire semester because Professor Greitzer was leaving Eastman
requiring Plaintiff to be assigned a new advisor.
60. On April 5, 2013, Plaintiff went back to Professor Snyder who said he was not sure if he would
back in town by May 7, 2013 for the recital and would let him know. This caused a great deal
of anxiety and stress as Plaintiff was unsure whether he would have to repeat the semester.
61. On April 14, 2013, Plaintiff was finally advised that Professor Snyder was available on May
7, 2013.
62. Plaintiff had his jury set with Prof. Barry Snyder, Professor Greitzer and Professor Antonova
who had agreed to be on the jury and view the recital via a video recording.
63. However, on the day of the recital, Professor Nelita True, a very close confident of Humpherys
walked in just seconds prior to the recital in a deliberate effort to unnerve Plaintiff and cause
him to fail.
64. On May 7, 2013, after only a hand full of lessons throughout this semester (as per the request
of Prof. Barry Snyder), Plaintiff performed his Lecture Recital. Plaintiff had hand delivered a
copy of the recital video to Professor Antonova who had previously agreed to be on the jury.
65. Plaintiff passed his recital. However, in September 2013, Plaintiff had a conversation with
Professor Antonova and she advised Plaintiff that she did not sit on the jury for his Lecture
Recital. She even denied that she had agreed to sit on his jury despite the fact that plaintiff
recorded the conversation in which she agreed to do so. The conversation where she denied
doing so is also recorded. This too was unnerving to Plaintiff as it demonstrates the position
of power that Humpherys held over other faculty members.
66. In September 2013, Plaintiff Irrera performed his second solo DMA solo recital. The jury was
19

 Professors Antonova and Snyder. The recital was videotaped. The video reveals Antonova
leaving at intermission and not returning for the remainder of the recital. Plaintiff finished his
recital and was approached by Professors Snyder, Morris (not on jury but witnessed the recital
since he co-composed the music), and Liptak (not on jury but witnessed the recital and cocomposed the music) who were all highly complementary. Normally, one is advised
immediately of the results of the recital, usually five minutes after the recital is concluded.
Plaintiff thought had he had passed but did not hear anything for over three weeks which was
extremely disconcerting to him. Eventually Plaintiff approached Professor Snyder who
advised Plaintiff that he had not talked to Professor Antonova yet. Plaintiff waited at least
another month before eventually (over two months after the recital) was advised that he had
passed the second solo recital. This long wait was another act of harassment in that his entire
career was hanging in the balance for over two months.
67. In the Spring 2014, Plaintiff Irrera received a “High Pass” on the DMA written Comprehensive
exams. There are no multiple-choice questions and a student's test is subjectively assessed
based solely from their essay responses. (Whenever Humpherys was not involved with
assessing plaintiff, he passed with praise.). This is a 14-hour exam (over two days). After
passing the written exam, students are then eligible to take the DMA Oral Exam. In April of
2014, Plaintiff Irrera passed the DMA Oral exam, which was the final requirement for the
DMA degree.
68. Plaintiff Irrera graduated with his Doctor of Musical Arts in May 2014.
69. It should be noted that Plaintiff Irrera taught at the ECMS as an intern but was advised that
since he graduated he could no longer be an intern. He had an extremely successful track record
20

 while he was an ECMS intern from 2007-2014. His students frequently performed very well
in their annual juries, won national and international competitions, performed as soloist with
the orchestra in Eastman Theater, continued on to major in piano after high school in
accredited music schools, and have even been nominated for the prestigious ECMS "Honors
Jury.” This is the highest-level diploma awarded by the ECMS. Most recently his ECMS
student SH was accepted at Indiana University, The Eastman School of Music, and Michigan
University.
70. Plaintiff was advised via email by Dean Howard Potter that once one graduates from Eastman
that one no longer is eligible to teach as intern. However, Plaintiff Irrera subsequently learned
that a number of graduates were permitted to continue to serve as a paid intern (upon
information and belief at least $24 per hour). For example the following students were allowed
to continue as paid interns after graduation such as WC, JV, SR, OK, and SJ, After graduation,
as the ECMS faculty handbook indicates, once an intern graduates they are able to increase
their teaching load to 17.5 hours per week. The only reason Plaintiff Irrera was not allowed to
continue as an intern was due to retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment.
71. Subsequently, Plaintiff Irrera applied to about 28 different openings 4across the USA and has

4

1. SUNY Fredonia (2011); Florida Gulf Coast University (2011 + 2012) Florida Southern College
(2012); Princeton (2012); Santa Rosa Junior College - CA (2012); University of the Incarnate Word
TX (2012); Christopher Newport University (2013); Coker College (2013); San Mateo County
Community College - CA (2013); Texas A&M (2013); Virginia Tech (2013); Chaffey College CA (2014); California State University Stanislaus (2014); Fresno College (2014); Tarrant College
TX (2014- 2 different opening this year, applied to both; University of South Florida (2014);
Middle Georgia State College (2014); Columbus State University - GA (2014); Moores School of
Music - TX (2014); Saint Anselm College (2014); Daytona State College (2014); Rowan
University (2014); California State University, East Bay (2014); Ithaca College (2015); Nazareth
College (2015); Chabot-las Positas Community College - CA (2015).
21

 not been invited for even a single phone interview. With a DMA degree from Eastman this is
extraordinarily rare (unheard of). Practically all of the DMA students at Eastman in the same
year have found a job shortly after they graduated and some even while they were still
completing the DMA degree. A DMA from Eastman is extremely prestigious, similar to
someone holding a medical degree from John Hopkins or Yale Medical School in the medical
profession. In addition to holding an Eastman DMA degree, Plaintiff Irrera is also a Steinway
Artist. Other names on the Steinway Artist list include Sergei Rachmaninoff, George
Gershwin, and Vladimir Horowitz. It should be noted that Plaintiff Irrera was honored and
welcomed as a Steinway Artist shortly after Defendant Humpherys threatened to expel him
from the Eastman School and said he “sounded like a wounded animal”
72. In the Summer 2014, Professor Snyder opined that Plaintiff Irrera should be able to find a good
position at a University with his skills and background (a very different assessment than
Humpherys’ assessment). After being advised that Humpherys stated to Plaintiff Irrera that he
would never find a teaching position at a University, Professor Snyder was in complete shock
that such a comment would be made and that it was a horrible thing to say to a student. Snyder
went on to say that he did hear something from Alla Kuznetsov that Humpherys harbored a
resentment toward Plaintiff Irrera. (This conversation is recorded).
73. Since Humpherys is the Chairman of the Eastman Piano Department and since he was Plaintiff
Irrera’s teacher for so long, a potential employer would typically contact him in order to learn
more about Plaintiff Irrera including his background. Professor Snyder was not sure what
Humpherys would tell the prospective employer and expressed such to Plaintiff Irrera with a
concerned look on his face. In fact, Nelita True (a close confidant of Defendant Humpherys
22

 and the same person who said Humpherys was “in love” with Plaintiff Irrera) stated about
Plaintiff that she had heard his juries and one recital, which he had failed. He failed because
he was not prepared, not talented enough and not of high enough standards. She also stated
concerning his piano playing, “He is not talented.” He had not prepared properly and his
professor was Douglas Humpherys, who was both Chairman of the department and very good.
In addition, on February 2, 2015, Plaintiff’s management, Parker Artists received a request for
the Irrera Brothers Piano & Violin Duo to appear at the Artist Series performing venue in
Tallahassee, FL for next concert season but was suddenly uninvited and replaced by a young
pianist with many close ties to Douglas Humpherys.
74. Upon information and belief, Professor Humpherys has communicated negative references to
at least some of the schools Plaintiff has applied to as he has not even been called to one
interview and he had stated that Plaintiff would NEVER get a university job. The only reason
for the negative reference was due to refusing the sexual advances of Professor Humpherys
and in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment.
75. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Plaintiff began to be treated by a mental health
professional in 2011 and was diagnosed with severe depression and gastritis. His treatment
continues to date. Also, he developed optical migraines (which can cause blindness) due to the
stress. Plaintiff has exhausted all remedies provided for under the University policy.

23

 AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY ONLY 20 USC § 1681 et seq. (TITLE IX)
76. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth at length
herein.
77. In January 2012, Plaintiff Irrera reported to Defendant that his professor, had been making
unwanted inappropriate and intimidating sexual advances toward him.
78. Upon information and belief, Defendant University of Rochester spoke about the complaints
to Professor Humpherys, however no bona fide investigation or action was taken.
79. As a result of the complaints, Plaintiff was not permitted to continue his internship subsequent
to his graduation, and upon information and belief, has been blackballed at schools that have
contacted the Defendant University of Rochester for a reference check.
80. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was unable to secure even an interview with
approximately 28 schools he applied to due to negative references provided.
81. As a result of the foregoing improper conduct on the part of Defendant University of Rochester
and Professor Humpherys, both who acted on behalf of Defendant University of Rochester,
Plaintiff Irrera was retaliated against for exercising his rights pursuant to 20 USC § 1681 et
seq. and suffered damages, including but not limited to lost wages and career opportunities,
both retroactively and in the future, damage to Plaintiff Irrera's reputation and emotional
distress, including worry, depression and loss of sleep to the point of being compelled to seek
professional help with regard to such condition.
82. That Plaintiff Irrera has been damaged including actual money damages and compensatory
and Plaintiff Irrera demands Defendant University of Rochester pay this amount, plus costs
24

 and disbursements in this action and attorneys’ fees as permitted by federal statute.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ALL DEFENDANTS-NY STATE EXECUTIVE LAW § 296
83. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth at length
herein.
84. Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Section 296(7) of the New
York State Executive Law (Human Rights Law) causing Plaintiff to be prevented from
obtaining internships and future employment because of Defendants retaliation.
85. Defendant, University of Rochester, unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of
Section 296(7) of the New York State Executive Law (Human Rights Law) resulting in
Plaintiff Irrera being damaged including actual money damages and compensatory damages
and Plaintiff Irrera demands Defendant University of Rochester pay this amount, plus costs
and disbursements in this action and attorneys’ fees as permitted by the New York State
Executive Law.
AS AND FOR THE A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY ONLY BREACH OF CONTRACT
86. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
87. Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, Defendant University of Rochester,
breached express and/or implied agreement(s) with Plaintiff.
88. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these breaches, Plaintiff sustained damages,
including, without limitation, emotional distress, loss of educational and economic injuries
and other direct and consequential damages.
89. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for Defendant University of Rochester's breach of the
25

 express and/or implied contractual obligations described above.
90. As a direct and proximate result of the above conduct, actions and inactions, Plaintiff has
suffered physical, emotional and reputational damages, economic injuries and the loss of
economic opportunities.
91. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, costs and disbursements.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DEF. UNIVERSITY ONLY COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
92. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth at
length herein.
93. Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, Defendant University of Rochester,
breached and violated a covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the agreement(s)
with Plaintiff.
94. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these breaches, Plaintiff sustained damages,
including, without limitation, emotional distress, loss of educational and economic
opportunities, economic injuries and other direct and consequential damages.
95. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for Defendant University of Rochester’s breach of the
express and/or implied contractual obligations described above. As a result of the foregoing,
Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, costs and disbursements.
PLAINTIFF HEREIN DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY

26

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Joseph Irrerra demands judgment against
Defendant University of Rochester for a violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that certain grades be expunged,
a judgment awarding Plaintiff Joseph Irrerra damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
including, without limitation, damages to his well-being, emotional damages, damages to reputation,
past and future economic losses, loss of employment opportunities, and loss of future career
prospects, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, costs and disbursements.
Dated: New York, New York
September 28, 2017

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Stewart Lee Karlin
STEWART LEE KARLIN, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
111 John Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10038
(212) 792-9670

27