Windley/Edwards v. NYC Dept. of Education
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-02875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Windley-Edwards v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Caproni granted defendants’ dismissal motion but allowed limited repleading of some employment claims.
Tesha L. Windley-Edwards’s employment-discrimination claims were narrowed: some were dismissed with prejudice, while others were dismissed without prejudice and could be repleaded by September 30, 2025. The New York City Department of Education, Susan Barnes, and Andrea Tucci obtained dismissal of their motion as ordered, subject to the permitted further amendment.
What happened
In Tesha L. Windley-Edwards v. New York City Department of Education, the defendants asked the court to dismiss her amended employment-discrimination complaint. A magistrate judge recommended granting that request, and Windley-Edwards filed only a general objection.
Because the objection did not identify specific errors, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court dismissed some Title VII, Section 1981, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims with prejudice, while dismissing other claims without prejudice and allowing a further amended complaint.
Judge Valerie Caproni adopted the recommendation and granted the defendants’ dismissal motion. Windley-Edwards could file a second amended complaint by September 30, 2025, but the court stated that failing to do so would result in dismissal of all claims with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Windley/Edwards v. NYC Dept. of Education · No. 1:24-cv-02875
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 27, 2025
Background
Tesha L. Windley-Edwards, representing herself, sued the New York City Department of Education, Susan Barnes, and Andrea Tucci. Her amended complaint asserted employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which address subject-matter jurisdiction and whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Gary Stein recommended granting the motion and allowing Windley-Edwards to amend her complaint.
Review of the Recommendation
Windley-Edwards objected generally to any recommendation that would prevent her from pursuing legal action against the Department of Education. The court explained that objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation must identify specific challenged findings. Because her objection was general, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation.
The court’s footnote specifically addressed the New York City Human Rights Law claims. Although those claims must be analyzed separately and broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, they still must contain more than conclusory or speculative allegations. The court found no clear error in recommending dismissal of those claims.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The following claims were dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile:
- Title VII claims against Barnes and Tucci, because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII. - Title VII claims against the Department of Education based on alleged discrimination before August 15, 2020, because those claims were time-barred. - Section 1981 claims against the Department of Education, because Section 1981 does not provide a cause of action against state actors and such claims must be brought through Section 1983. - Section 1981 claims against Barnes and Tucci based on alleged discrimination before April 14, 2020, because those claims were time-barred. - New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims against all defendants based on alleged discrimination before March 2, 2018, because the election-of-remedies doctrine barred them.
Windley-Edwards was granted leave to file a second amended complaint addressing identified deficiencies only as to these claims, which were dismissed without prejudice:
- Title VII claims against the Department of Education based on alleged discrimination on or after August 15, 2020. - Section 1981 claims against Barnes and Tucci based on alleged discrimination on or after April 14, 2020. - New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims based on alleged discrimination on or after March 2, 2018, including allegations that she satisfied the notice-of-claim requirements for claims against the Department of Education. - A possible Section 1983 claim against the Department of Education based on the alleged conversion of the Section 1981 claim, including an allegation that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the claimed civil-rights violation.
Any second amended complaint had to be filed by September 30, 2025. The court stated that if Windley-Edwards did not file one by that deadline, it would dismiss all claims with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the defendants’ motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.