Harte v. Pace University

Background

Wendy Harte, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Pace University and University President Marvin Krislov, Associate Professors Sarah Blackwood and Stephanie Hsu, Title IX Investigator Bernadette Baumann, and Assistant Director of Employee and Labor Relations Sia Bundor. She alleged race discrimination and retaliation under federal, New York State, and New York City law, as well as defamation per se.

Harte alleged that students in her spring 2021 Introduction to Critical Race and Ethnicity Studies class engaged in race-based bullying. She alleged that university administrators advised her to change the course, and that Hsu and Blackwood later observed her classes. After a meeting involving Hsu, Blackwood, Baumann, and Harte’s union representative, Harte was accused of having faulty perceptions of events, retaliating against students, and suppressing their freedom of speech. Blackwood later removed Harte from teaching the class and paid her the balance of her salary for the semester.

In a March 29, 2024 order, Judge Andrew Carter dismissed Harte’s race-discrimination, harassment, and defamation-per-se claims, as well as all claims against Krislov, while allowing some retaliation claims to proceed. The court held that Harte’s Title VII race-discrimination claims against Pace University were not administratively exhausted because her signed charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not mention race discrimination. It also dismissed certain claims because individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII, because Harte had not adequately alleged personal involvement by Krislov and Bundor in retaliation, because she had not alleged facts showing the required discriminatory intent, and because her defamation allegations were insufficient.

Harte’s Motion

On February 6, 2025, Harte filed a 38-page letter asking for permission to amend her complaint. She sought to reinstate the dismissed race-discrimination, harassment, and defamation claims, include allegations concerning the entire spring 2021 semester, restore Krislov as a defendant, and obtain sanctions against the defendants. She did not attach a proposed third amended complaint.

Harte relied on an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intake form and alleged that she discussed race during an interview with the agency. She argued that this information showed she had exhausted the administrative requirement for her Title VII race-discrimination claims. She also proposed allegations that white professors in Pace’s Musical Theater department received more favorable treatment after comparable student complaints.

Reasons for Denial

The court explained that permission to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile, meaning the proposed claims still could not survive a motion to dismiss. The court found that Harte’s additional Equal Employment Opportunity Commission allegations would not cure the exhaustion problem. The signed charge itself did not mention race discrimination, and statements in an intake questionnaire or interview could not replace the required contents of the charge.

The proposed comparator allegations also did not support amendment. The professors Harte identified worked in a different department and did not share the same supervisors. The court concluded that these allegations would not establish that they were similarly situated in the relevant respects or create a reasonable inference that Hsu and Blackwood acted because of racial bias.

The court additionally denied amendment because of undue delay and prejudice. Judge Carter had dismissed the race-discrimination claims in March 2024, but Harte waited more than a year to seek amendment and did not explain the delay. Discovery was substantially underway, with document discovery expected to be largely completed soon and fact discovery scheduled to close in August 2025.

The court treated Harte’s requests to restore the defamation claim and Krislov as a request to reconsider Judge Carter’s earlier decision. Such a request had to be filed within 14 days, but Harte filed it in February 2025. The court also stated that reconsideration would fail on the merits because Harte identified no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear legal or factual error. Finally, the court denied sanctions because the record did not establish sanctionable conduct by the defendants or their counsel.

Disposition

The court denied Harte’s request for leave to amend the complaint and denied her request for sanctions. The opinion does not state that these requests were denied with or without prejudice.