Zablauskas v. The Department of Education of the City of New York

Background

Michael Zablauskas brought one claim against the Department of Education of the City of New York under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging race discrimination. He alleged that he was treated less favorably than African American, Hispanic, Latino, Lebanese, and Jamaican teachers in matters including discipline, corrections to personnel records, tenure, classroom observations, professional development, scheduling, and remedial opportunities. He also alleged that school administrators and staff repeatedly referred to him as “White Jesus.” He alleged that his employment was discontinued on or about September 1, 2019.

Zablauskas filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later filed this lawsuit after receiving a notice permitting him to sue. The Department moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Timeliness of the Title VII Claim

The court held that Title VII required Zablauskas to file his administrative discrimination charge within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. The parties agreed that, measured from September 1, 2019, the deadline was June 27, 2020. In the discussion of timeliness, the court stated that Zablauskas filed his charge on August 24, 2020, and therefore filed it too late.

Zablauskas argued that New York executive orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic extended the deadline by 228 days. The court rejected that argument, concluding that the state orders tolling state limitations periods and procedural deadlines did not extend the deadline for this federal Title VII claim.

Equitable Tolling

Zablauskas also argued that equitable tolling should apply. Equitable tolling is a limited doctrine that can extend a filing deadline when a person diligently pursued his rights but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. He relied on his need to care for his seriously ill wife, his own COVID-19 illness, and the pandemic-related shutdowns.

The court held that he had not alleged facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently during the period he sought to extend. The court also held that the general effects of the pandemic, his need to remain home, and the illnesses described did not establish the required extraordinary circumstances or a causal connection showing that those events prevented a timely filing.

Disposition

The court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Zablauskas’s Title VII claim with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court expressly stated that, because the claim was untimely, it did not reach the Department’s remaining arguments that the amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief.