Verne v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

Marie Verne, a former Spanish teacher at Franklin Delano Roosevelt High School, sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and Melanie Katz, the school’s principal. Verne alleged that the DOE discriminated against her because of her age and disability, created hostile work environments, and failed to accommodate her religion and disability. She also asserted New York City Human Rights Law claims against Katz for age discrimination and an age-based hostile work environment.

Verne had received generally positive performance reviews from 2014 through 2017. Beginning in the 2018–2019 school year, she received lower evaluations, was placed on a Teacher Improvement Plan, received disciplinary letters, and was charged under New York Education Law. In February 2020, she was reassigned from classroom teaching to library and administrative work. She later resigned or retired from the DOE in November 2021. Verne also sought an early-session schedule for fall 2019 because of her medical treatment and religious observance, and requested remote work in September 2021.

After discovery ended, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a legally important issue.

Rulings on Federal Claims

The court denied summary judgment on Verne’s ADEA age-discrimination claim against the DOE. The DOE offered nondiscriminatory explanations for its actions, including alleged poor performance, tardiness, absences, verbal abuse, and insubordination. But the court found enough evidence for a reasonable factfinder to question whether those explanations were pretexts for age discrimination. In particular, Verne presented evidence supporting her assertion that Katz targeted older teachers and evidence that her Teacher Improvement Plan may have been unachievable. The court emphasized that summary judgment addresses whether factual disputes require a trial, not which side’s evidence is more credible.

The court granted summary judgment on Verne’s ADA disability-discrimination claim. Although the court found that a reasonable juror could conclude that Verne was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it held that she had not produced enough evidence that her disability was the but-for cause of the DOE’s actions. The court also granted summary judgment on her ADEA and ADA hostile-work-environment claims because the evidence did not show conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive, or sufficiently connected to her age or disability, to create an objectively abusive workplace.

The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part on Verne’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. The claim based on the September 2021 remote-work request was dismissed because the request was administratively closed for inadequate medical documentation, Verne retired before the interactive process could continue, and the roughly one-month response period was insufficient by itself to support the claim. The claim based on the 2019 request for an early schedule may proceed because the parties disputed when Verne informed school administrators of her medical needs and whether the requested schedule was reasonable.

The court granted summary judgment on Verne’s Title VII religious-accommodation claim. The court found that Verne had not shown that she failed to comply with a conflicting work requirement during the relevant fall 2019 period. It also noted that approved leave can qualify as a reasonable religious accommodation.

New York City Human Rights Law Claims

The court denied summary judgment on Verne’s NYCHRL age-discrimination claim against Katz. The court reasoned that the evidence supporting the surviving ADEA claim also created a factual issue under the NYCHRL’s more lenient standard, which asks whether Verne was treated less well, at least partly because of age. The court found evidence that Katz may have helped initiate the first set of disciplinary charges against Verne.

The court also denied summary judgment on Verne’s NYCHRL age-based hostile-work-environment claim. Unlike the federal standard, the NYCHRL does not require proof that the conduct was severe or pervasive; the relevant question is whether Verne was treated less well because of age. The court concluded that the evidence supporting the age-discrimination claim also created a factual dispute on this claim.

The court dismissed Verne’s NYCHRL claims based on religion and disability because her opposition to summary judgment focused on age discrimination and did not address those claims.

Disposition

The court stated that Defendants’ summary judgment motion was granted in part and denied in part. It dismissed Verne’s ADA disability-discrimination claim, ADEA hostile-work-environment claim, ADA hostile-work-environment claim, ADA accommodation claim concerning the September 2021 remote-work request, Title VII religious-accommodation claim, and NYCHRL claims alleging religion and disability discrimination. Verne’s ADEA age-discrimination claim, ADA accommodation claim concerning the 2019 schedule request, and NYCHRL age-discrimination and age-based hostile-work-environment claims may proceed. The court directed the parties to appear for a status conference to discuss a trial date.