Oparaji v. Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York

Background

Maurice Oparaji moved for reconsideration of the court’s May 15, 2025 Opinion and Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his Second Amended Complaint. A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier ruling, but the court described it as an extraordinary remedy that is generally available only when there has been a change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or the court must correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice.

Oparaji’s arguments

Oparaji identified eight matters that he said the court had ignored or misunderstood. He argued that he was coerced into withdrawing his retirement contributions; that defendants had changed his retirement-system membership number and eliminated his contributions without his knowledge or consent; and that race motivated defendants’ actions. He also argued that Melanie Whinnery had been properly served and that he was entitled to a default judgment against her, that the individual defendants had personally discriminated against him and were responsible as signatories to a December 17, 2018 Pension and Stipulation Order, and that his Title VII claims were not barred by the filing deadline. He further argued that the court incorrectly stated that he had not responded to the defendants’ time-bar argument.

Court’s analysis

The court held that these arguments did not satisfy the strict standard for reconsideration. Oparaji did not identify an intervening change in law, controlling decisions, or data that the court had overlooked. Instead, the court found that he was repeating conclusory allegations of discrimination and retaliation that it had already determined did not state a claim.

The court stated that Oparaji’s allegations about being coerced into withdrawing his contributions did not change the result because, under the court’s earlier explanation, there is no separate private right of action against state actors under Section 1981. The court therefore maintained that Oparaji’s Section 1981 claims could not proceed.

The court also rejected Oparaji’s argument that his Title VII claims were timely. Based on his acknowledgment that he first received notice of the alleged discrimination on December 18, 2018, the court calculated that he had until October 14, 2019—300 days later—to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He did not file that charge until July 22, 2024. The court said its earlier opinion had already accounted for the 300-day period.

Disposition

Judge Kimba M. Wood denied Oparaji’s motion for reconsideration. The court directed the clerk to close the pending motion at ECF No. 53. It also denied the defendants’ request for an extension of time to respond to the motion, ECF No. 55, as moot. The court reminded Oparaji that he could contact the Office of the Gulino Ombudsman with questions about monetary and non-monetary relief in Gulino.