Ferris v. Ayoub
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-09807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ferris v. Ayoub, Judge Subramanian denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing Ferris’s discrimination, retaliation, and contract claims to proceed.
Denise Ferris’s discrimination, retaliation, Title IX harassment, and breach-of-contract claims were allowed to proceed past the pleading stage against Hany G. Ayoub and Columbia University in the City of New York.
What happened
In Ferris v. Ayoub, Denise Ferris accused Hany G. Ayoub and Columbia University in the City of New York of gender-based discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and city laws, along with breach of contract. The defendants asked the court to dismiss her complaint.
The court concluded that Ferris’s allegations plausibly stated claims under Title IX, Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It also ruled that her Title IX harassment claim and breach-of-contract claim raised factual questions that could not be resolved before evidence was gathered.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He lifted the stay on discovery and directed the parties to complete a case-management plan within 14 days that provides for completing discovery within six months.
The detailed version
- Ferris v. Ayoub · No. 1:24-cv-09807
- Subramanian
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
Denise Ferris sued Hany G. Ayoub and Columbia University in the City of New York. She alleged gender-based discrimination and retaliation under Title IX, Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also asserted a breach-of-contract claim. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Title IX does not provide a private right of action for employment discrimination based on gender. The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that Title IX allows a university faculty member to bring such a claim.
The court also concluded that Ferris’s allegations plausibly stated discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, Title IX, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Ferris alleged that she experienced continuing discriminatory and unfair treatment based on her gender, that the university and its representatives did not take the issues seriously, and that she was ultimately terminated after speaking up. The court did not decide whether discovery would ultimately support those allegations; it held only that they were sufficient at the pleading stage.
As to count five, the court held that Ferris plausibly alleged a Title IX violation. Ferris said Columbia failed to follow its own grievance procedures when handling her harassment complaint. The defendants argued that they lacked adequate notice of the alleged harassment and therefore could not have acted with deliberate indifference. The court held that determining who knew what, and when, was a fact-intensive issue requiring discovery.
The court separately denied the motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract claim. It said that the existence and enforceability of a binding contract, as well as whether the defendants breached it, presented factual questions that could not be resolved at the pleading stage.
Disposition and Next Steps
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court lifted the stay of discovery and stated that within 14 days the parties should complete a case-management plan providing for completion of discovery within six months.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.