A Hispanic man has filed a lawsuit against Hofstra in the Nassau County Supreme Court citing racially-motivated false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress and discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law. David O’Neill, 32, of Suffolk County, filed the civil suit on February 12, 2018, seeking $100,000 for each of the three counts, plus $500,000 in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, totaling $800,000.

Court documents uncovered by The Chronicle earlier this month reveal allegations that Public Safety officers discriminated against and wrongfully detained O’Neill, who had been living on campus during the summer of 2017. As of publication, the lawsuit is still active.

The plaintiff’s lawyer, G. Oliver Koppell, a former New York State attorney general, told The Chronicle via a phone interview that his client’s experience was due to racial profiling. “[My client] has a Hispanic background, and we believe that was one of the causes of the improper treatment he received,” Koppell said. “He was improperly treated, … wrongfully imprisoned and held against his will.”

According to court documents, O’Neill was living in Newport house in Colonial Square with his girlfriend, Brittany Coffer, during the summer of 2017. O’Neill and Coffer were residents authorized both by the University and by Cultural Care Au Pair, a childcare training service. Coffer was assistant director of operations at Cultural Care, according to her LinkedIn. The company had rented the space for summer programming.

Koppell spoke on behalf of O’Neill, who declined to speak to the press at this time. Coffer could not be reached for comment.

According to the complaint, O’Neill was leaving Newport house when he was stopped by a Public Safety officer, who asked him how he had entered the building.

O’Neill told the officer he had entered with his keycard, adding that he was a resident with Cultural Care through Conference Services and had been there for two months. O’Neill then showed the officer his keycard.

The complaint alleges that the officer “continued to harass and question” O’Neill and asked for additional identification.

O’Neill returned to his residence hall and the officer followed him to his room. Upon arriving at the room, the officer questioned Coffer regarding O’Neill’s residence. Coffer said they lived together and were both authorized residents.

The officer continued to question the couple and called for backup. O’Neill attempted to leave the building a second time but was stopped by “five to seven additional Hofstra Public Safety officers,” according to the complaint. This included the night manager, who supervises nighttime Public Safety shifts. Public Safety nor Koppell would disclose any names of officers or faculty involved in the incidents.

O’Neill told the night manager he believed the reasons he was stopped and questioned were “racially motivated.” The night manager replied by threatening to call the police and then directed the Public Safety officers to escort O’Neill back to the residence hall a second time. At the dorm, Coffer reaffirmed O’Neill was an authorized resident.

Public Safety then escorted O’Neill to his car and requested his state-issued identification, which he provided. The complaint detailed that despite “non-threatening behavior and full cooperation,” O’Neill was “surrounded” by security personnel and “prevented from leaving the premises.”

The officers transported O’Neill by patrol car to the Department of Public Safety Office “against his will,” the complaint alleges. The officers confined him to a room where they continued to question O’Neill upward of two hours.

During this time, the day manager called the night manager to confirm that O’Neill was an authorized resident at Hofstra. The officers escorted O’Neill back to Newport house via patrol car and then followed him back to his dorm room. O’Neill, on his own volition, packed his belongings and went to his car, still followed by Public Safety. Before he left, the night manager demanded he leave his state-issued identification at the resident safety representative (RSR) booth in Colonial Square. O’Neill complied and then drove away. Public Safety officers continued to follow his car until he had exited the campus, according to the complaint.

The complaint further alleges that O’Neill’s detainment was “without reason or basis, and [was] done with a conscious disregard for [the] plaintiff’s civil rights.”

The following day, two separate Hofstra officials reached out to O’Neill to apologize, the complaint says. “It was an extremely upsetting experience for him,” Koppell said. “There was no reason for them to restrain him.”

Hofstra’s legal response to the lawsuit corroborates some of what the complaint asserts. It acknowledges that O’Neill was exiting Newport house and that he was stopped and subsequently questioned. It also confirms that officers made a copy of O’Neill’s state-issued identification, escorted him to and from Newport house in a patrol car, spoke to Coffer while O’Neill packed his belongings and continued to follow O’Neill until he left campus. However, the University disputes other details of O’Neill’s account and denies that the officers acted wrongfully or were motivated by racism.

Assistant Vice President of University Relations Karla Schuster declined to answer specific questions about pending litigation. She only offered a general denial of the claims levied against the school.

“Hofstra University followed campus safety protocols with regard to this matter and denies all allegations of discriminatory conduct,” Schuster said. “The University is vigorously defending the lawsuit in the court system.”

Director of Public Safety Karen O’Callaghan declined to comment on the case, also citing University policy not to comment on pending litigation. She also declined requests to put The Chronicle in contact with the night manager, day manager or other officers involved.

However, O’Callaghan did speak to The Chronicle about the protocols and trainings provided to officers. “Public Safety’s duty is to keep the campus community safe, protect them and offer assistance when needed,” she said.

According to O’Callaghan, officers are supposed to investigate if they have reason to believe someone is trespassing on the residential side of campus, which is only open to Hofstra residents and authorized guests.

“If [someone who is stopped and questioned] presents identification and we can verify that person belongs there, then of course they’re going to be allowed,” O’Callaghan said. “In most cases, when we stop and question someone, it is often because we received a call that they have seen somebody suspicious on campus, in the library or one of the buildings.”

Officers do not carry weapons and they do not have arresting powers. Their abi
lities “are similar to those of a civilian,” O’Callaghan said.

However, if someone seems suspicious, O’Callaghan said, “then we will escort them to [the DPSO] and notify police to respond to assist in identifying the person who might be trespassing on Hofstra property,” she said. “In limited cases, we may restrain someone who is posing a physical threat to others or themselves.”

O’Callaghan told The Chronicle that Public Safety is a private security force hired by Hofstra. According to Hofstra’s 2018 Public Safety Report, all officers are licensed by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and must complete at least 24 hours of private security training in addition to annual in-service training. These sessions cover issues such as sex crimes, fire prevention, community relations and diversity.

Amanda Del Gaudio, from Hofstra’s Intercultural Engagement and Inclusion Center, confirmed that she hosted Public Safety officers for about two hours of training this past January.

The training, called Help Us Help You Help Them, addressed a broad spectrum of topics pertaining to diversity, such as gender and racial identity.

As for the lawsuit, depositions began Thursday, March 7, 2019. Discovery will continue in the coming weeks.