Kalia v. The City College of New York

Background

Ravi Kalia, a tenured full professor of history at City College of New York (CCNY), alleged that he experienced race discrimination and retaliation during his tenure. He sued CCNY, the City University of New York (CUNY), and three employees under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and common-law tortious-interference theories.

The complaint focused on several events. Kalia alleged that he was denied a Distinguished Professor appointment, which carried an annual pay increase and other professional benefits; that his sabbatical request was denied; and that he was not allowed to teach a historiography course while a white professor allegedly received that opportunity. He also alleged that these actions were connected to his complaints about discrimination and institutional racism.

Procedural Posture and Prior Proceedings

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. The court considered the complaint, documents attached to or incorporated into it, and pleadings from a prior related proceeding, but declined to consider several other materials submitted by the defendants because doing so would improperly turn the motion into a summary-judgment proceeding.

The court held that Kalia’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim was barred by claim preclusion, a rule preventing a party from relitigating a claim already resolved on the merits. The court found that the prior related proceeding involved the same parties and the same hostile-work-environment claim. The court did not apply that rule to Kalia’s disparate-treatment claim because the principal events alleged there occurred after the earlier proceeding ended. The court also held that portions of Kalia’s retaliation claim concerning the denial of a salary supplement and an opportunity to teach graduate courses were precluded, leaving the December 2020 denial of his Distinguished Professor application as the surviving retaliation theory for analysis.

Disparate Treatment

The court addressed the merits of Kalia’s Title VII disparate-treatment claim. It assumed the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations were true for purposes of the motion, but required facts supporting a minimal, plausible inference that the defendants acted because of Kalia’s race, color, or national origin.

As to the Distinguished Professor appointment, Kalia relied mainly on allegations that white professors received more favorable treatment. The court found those allegations insufficient because the complaint did not show that the identified professors were similarly situated in all material respects. The complaint gave too little information about one alleged comparator, identified another as an administrator with different responsibilities, and did not explain why the remaining comparator was sufficiently similar to support an inference of discrimination.

The court reached the same conclusion regarding the sabbatical request. Kalia alleged that a white professor had been allowed to take a sabbatical outside the usual cycle, but he did not allege facts showing that the two professors were materially similar. Regarding the historiography course, the court concluded that denying a request to teach a course could qualify as an adverse employment action because course assignments can affect the terms or conditions of employment. However, Kalia’s allegations that a less experienced and less qualified white professor received the course were conclusory and did not plausibly suggest discriminatory motive.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the disparate-treatment claim.

Retaliation

Kalia’s surviving retaliation theory concerned the December 2020 denial of his Distinguished Professor application. To state a retaliation claim, he had to plausibly allege protected activity, the defendants’ knowledge of that activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the protected activity and the action.

Kalia alleged that the defendants orchestrated the denial after his complaints of discrimination and that CCNY counsel had previously opposed his advancement because of earlier discrimination lawsuits. The court found that the complaint did not plausibly connect that alleged retaliatory intent to the December 2020 decision. Kalia did not allege that the counsel personally made the decision or served on the committee that denied the application. The complaint also did not specifically allege that the counsel directed the department chair to withhold reference letters, did not allege that he influenced another administrator, and did not explain how any alleged influence proximately caused the committee’s decision. Assertions made only in Kalia’s opposition brief could not cure those omissions in the complaint.

The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the retaliation claim.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state claims alongside federal claims—over Kalia’s New York State, New York City, and common-law claims. It dismissed those remaining claims without prejudice.

The order states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Kalia’s Title VII claims, identified as the First, Second, and Fourth Causes of Action, were dismissed with prejudice. The remainder of his claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.