Ramos v. Columbia University

Background

Nilsa Ramos filed the action without a lawyer against Columbia University, asserting employment discrimination and retaliation. Her form complaint appeared to reference 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court instead construed the allegations as asserting disability-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The allegations largely came from attachments to Ramos’s complaint, including a 2022 statement and a 2024 letter from Columbia’s lawyer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to those materials, Ramos had worked for Columbia since October 1999 and was terminated in May 2023 after remaining on leave for 18 months. Columbia had required employees to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination or request a medical or religious accommodation. Ramos said that a planned allergy test was delayed after her medical appointment was canceled because of a storm. She was later placed on unpaid leave, submitted materials seeking a medical exemption, and provided a doctor’s note stating that an ankle injury left her unable to work. She also alleged that managers targeted and retaliated against her for raising workplace issues.

Screening standard

Because Ramos had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, the complaint still must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible rather than merely possible.

ADA claims based on the first EEOC charge

The court determined that Ramos’s ADA claims arising from EEOC Charge No. 520-2021-05186 appeared untimely. In New York, an employee generally has 300 days to file an employment-discrimination charge with the EEOC. After receiving the EEOC’s notice of the right to sue, the employee generally has 90 days to file an ADA lawsuit based on that charge.

The materials attached to the complaint stated that the EEOC dismissed the first charge on October 20, 2022. Applying presumptions about mailing and receipt, the court reasoned that Ramos likely received the notice around October 23, 2022, making the apparent filing deadline about January 21, 2023. Because Ramos filed this action on August 16, 2024, the court dismissed the ADA claims arising from that charge as untimely and therefore as failing to state a claim. The court granted leave to amend so Ramos could allege facts showing that the claims were timely or explaining why the filing period should be extended for an equitable reason.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court dismissed Ramos’s disability-discrimination claims under Title I of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act arising from both EEOC charges for failure to state a claim. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege, among other things, that the employer took an adverse employment action because of the plaintiff’s disability. The court found that Ramos had not alleged facts showing that, without her disability, Columbia would not have taken the challenged actions. The court also noted that Ramos had not alleged facts showing that Columbia received federal funding, an additional requirement for a Rehabilitation Act employment claim against a private employer.

The dismissal was accompanied by leave to amend. The court allowed Ramos to allege additional facts sufficient to state claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

Retaliation claims

The court also dismissed Ramos’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims arising from both EEOC charges for failure to state a claim. A retaliation claim requires facts showing protected activity, the defendant’s knowledge of that activity, an adverse action, and a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. The court found that Ramos had alleged nothing suggesting Columbia retaliated against her for participating in protected activity. The court again granted leave to replead those claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Ramos 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Ramos must repeat any facts or claims she wants the court to consider. The court directed her to provide relevant people’s names and titles, descriptions and approximate dates and locations of events, her injuries, and the relief she seeks.

The conclusion states that, if Ramos does not timely comply and cannot show good cause, the court will dismiss the action. It further states that the court will dismiss the federal claims for failure to state a claim and decline to consider the New York State and New York City claims under supplemental jurisdiction. No summonses would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Ramos fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.