Boudjelta v. CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership Inc

Background

Christine Sarah Viviane Boudjelta alleged that she worked for CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership Inc. through the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program. She alleged that CLAL described her position as bookkeeper in its visa petition even though she actually worked as a controller, allowing CLAL to pay her less than the prevailing wage for a controller in the New York area.

Boudjelta also alleged that she observed financial and tax practices at CLAL that she believed were improper, including allegedly unreported compensation, improper housing allowances, grants to connected individuals, personal expenses paid with organizational funds, and other inappropriate expenditures. She alleged that after raising these concerns, CLAL and its executives agreed to replace her. CLAL terminated her on January 13, 2025, while she was outside the country on approved vacation. She alleged that the termination was retaliation and was intended to prevent her from returning to the United States because of her immigration status.

After her termination, Boudjelta alleged that CLAL failed to pay her for unused vacation or other paid leave and issued an incorrect wage statement. She also alleged that Rabbi Bradley Hirschfield sent an email criticizing her and later accused her of stealing money from CLAL. Her amended complaint asserted seven claims: two under the Immigration and Nationality Act, one retaliation claim under the New York Labor Law, one retaliation claim under the Taxpayers First Act, two national-origin discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law, and a state-law defamation claim.

Motion to Dismiss and Outside Materials

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They asked the court to consider emails, the termination notice, and other documents submitted with the motion. Boudjelta opposed that request and asked the court to convert the motion into one for summary judgment, which would allow consideration of evidence outside the pleadings.

The court declined to consider the defendants’ outside materials because they were not attached to or sufficiently relied on in the complaint, and because Boudjelta disputed their accuracy and relevance. The court also declined to convert the motion into a summary-judgment motion because discovery had been stayed and the parties had not had an opportunity to conduct discovery or exchange supporting materials.

Federal Claims

The court held that Boudjelta had not exhausted the administrative procedures required for her Immigration and Nationality Act claims. Claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n) must first be presented to the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. The administrative process may include review by an administrative law judge and the Secretary of Labor, after which a party may seek judicial review. Boudjelta acknowledged that her Department of Labor proceedings were still ongoing. The court therefore concluded that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims at that time and dismissed them.

The court reached a similar conclusion regarding the Taxpayers First Act claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(d). That provision requires a claimant to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor and generally wait for a final decision or 180 days before bringing a federal action, subject to the statute’s conditions. The court also found that Boudjelta abandoned this claim by failing to respond to the defendants’ argument that it should be dismissed. The court dismissed the federal claims under the INA and TFA.

State Claims and Disposition

The remaining claims arose under the New York Labor Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and state tort law. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims connected to federal claims in the same case. Because the court dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Boudjelta’s federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and dismissed those claims as well. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.