Around two years after a judge allowed a lawsuit filed by a former art history professor against SUNY and several high-level University administrators to move forward, both parties await a decision that will determine if the case will proceed to trial.

The case has been in the discovery phase of civil litigation that sees motions made to the court, the deposition of witnesses and a review of evidence.

The former professor, Karen Barzman, alleged sex-based discrimination and retaliation in connection with an abusive relationship with John Tagg, a SUNY distinguished professor of art history. The lawsuit names as defendants SUNY; Donald Nieman, a professor of history and a former provost; Celia Klin, the dean of Harpur College; Andrew Baker, the Title IX coordinator; and Nancy Um, a former associate professor of art history.

The press office at the New York attorney general’s office, which represents the defendants, referred a request to comment to SUNY. Tagg and spokespeople for SUNY and the University did not return requests for comment.

After Tagg arranged for Barzman’s hiring, he allegedly demeaned her at work while encouraging colleagues in the art history department to do the same, according to court filings. Barzman previously told Pipe Dream that she was ostracized from the department after their relationship ended in 2005.

“Defendants’ violations arise from Defendants’ deliberate indifference over an extended period to Dr. Barzman’s complaints of sex-based harassment and domestic violence against the former chair of Art History at Binghamton, John Tagg,” the original complaint, filed in April 2022, read.

In 2021, Barzman signed an agreement allowing her to receive one year’s salary and supervise her remaining doctoral students in exchange for severing her relationship with the University. She previously characterized the agreement as compulsory.

In March 2023, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case was denied by Thomas J. McAvoy, a senior district court judge. The following discovery process encompassed “over 25,000 pages of documents, eight depositions and two expert reports,” according to a letter to the court from one of Barzman’s attorneys.

A motion for summary judgment, a request for adjudication without proceeding to a trial, was then filed in November 2024 by Brian Matula, an assistant attorney general representing the defendants. It primarily argued that Barzman’s case was untimely and that she failed both to present sufficient evidence to support her claims and “establish a question of material fact.”

“Even if Plaintiff establishes that she experienced ‘severe, pervasive and objectionably offensive conduct,’ she cannot establish that the University had actual knowledge of the conduct and that the University was deliberately indifferent to that conduct,” it read, specifically addressing a Title IX claim.

Amy Robinson, Barzman’s attorney, submitted an opposing memorandum to the court in December.

“The university did nothing,” its preliminary statement read. “Binghamton administrators never launched an investigation, never issued a report of their investigative findings, never took affirmative steps to transfer or protect Dr. Barzman, and never made recommendations or interventions. Binghamton utterly failed Dr. Barzman, leaving her vulnerable and unprotected.”

“As a result, she suffered — often needlessly — for decades,” it added.

The last public document on record, a memorandum in further support of summary judgment, was filed by Matula on Jan. 17.

“Plaintiff has failed to establish a question of material fact which would allow her claims to proceed to trial,” it read. “In lieu of presenting the Court with factual proof supporting her claims, Plaintiff instead makes baseless technical arguments and raises ‘objections’ to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts.”

A decision from a judge on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is expected within the next few months.