Ramos v. Columbia University

Background

Nilsa Ramos sued Columbia University, identified as her former employer. She appeared without a lawyer and was proceeding without paying the filing fee under the court’s in forma pauperis process. In an earlier order, the court dismissed deficiencies in her original complaint but gave her 60 days to amend; it later extended that deadline to August 14, 2025. Ramos filed an amended complaint on that date.

The amended complaint invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It alleged race and age discrimination in connection with some of those statutes, but the court found that the factual allegations instead concerned disability discrimination, retaliation, leave without pay, and the loss of her job after she did not receive a COVID-19 vaccination or exemption within the time allowed by Columbia. Ramos sought damages, reinstatement, and reasonable disability accommodations.

Claims and analysis

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting disability-based employment-discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. It did not treat the amended complaint as asserting claims under Title VII, Section 1981, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because the complaint did not allege discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or age in its factual allegations.

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claims arising from Ramos’s first Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge as untimely. Ramos did not allege facts showing that those claims were timely or that the deadline should be extended for equitable reasons. The court therefore dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without the filing fee.

The court also dismissed the disability-discrimination claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act arising from both of Ramos’s identified Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges. As to the Rehabilitation Act, Ramos did not allege that Columbia received federal funds. The court further held that she did not allege facts showing that she had a disability protected by those laws or that Columbia took an adverse employment action because of her disability. In particular, the court said she alleged that she was placed on unpaid leave because she lacked a required COVID-19 vaccine or exemption and later lost her job after exceeding the 18-month leave period in her union’s collective-bargaining agreement, but did not allege the required connection between a protected disability and the employment action.

The court dismissed Ramos’s retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. For the Rehabilitation Act claims, she did not allege that Columbia received federal funds. For both statutes, she did not allege facts suggesting that Columbia retaliated against her because she engaged in legally protected activity. The court also dismissed without prejudice any possible retaliation claims concerning work experiences at Columbia between her hiring on September 27, 1999, and September 8, 2021, if those events fell outside the allegations in either Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge.

The court dismissed without prejudice any possible employment-discrimination claims based on work experiences at Columbia and John Jay College of Criminal Justice between September 27, 1999, and September 8, 2021, that were not alleged in the first Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge. The court explained that those allegations exceeded the limited permission it had previously granted to amend.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—instead of considering Ramos’s claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It denied Ramos further leave to amend because she had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint’s deficiencies and had not done so. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Ramos fee-free status for an appeal.

Uncertainty note

One passage refers to the court’s “April 14, 2024 Order,” while the surrounding text identifies the earlier order as dated April 14, 2025. This summary follows the surrounding identification and does not rely on that conflicting reference.