Weiss v. City University of New York

Background

Faigy Rachel Weiss sued the City University of New York (CUNY), the CUNY Board of Trustees, Hunter College, the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College, and several CUNY administrators. She alleged discrimination related to the rejection of her application for admission to the Master of Social Work program. She represented herself.

In earlier orders, the court dismissed some claims, including claims under Sections 1981 and 1983 against certain institutional defendants and official-capacity claims for money damages. In a March 18, 2019 Opinion and Order, the court allowed only three categories of claims to proceed: a Title VI claim against CUNY; Section 1983 claims against the CUNY Board of Trustees, James Milliken, Nireata Seals, John Rose, Jennifer Raab, and Roberta Nord in their individual capacities; and Section 1981 claims against those same defendants in their individual capacities.

Weiss later filed a Second Amended Complaint. The court stated that it was virtually identical to the prior amended complaint, except that references to former Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman were replaced with references to current Attorney General Letitia James. Defendants asked the court to dismiss the claims that had already been dismissed and to set a schedule for a renewed motion to dismiss.

Preliminary Injunction

Weiss asked the court to order CUNY to admit her to the social-work program as a full-time student and provide a full tuition waiver or scholarship, a living stipend, and medical and dental insurance. A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment. The court explained that the requesting party generally must show irreparable harm—that is, harm that cannot adequately be repaired later—and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with hardships strongly favoring the request. Because Weiss sought to change the existing situation by requiring admission and funding, the court applied the higher standard requiring a clear or substantial likelihood of success.

The court held that Weiss did not show or even allege that she would suffer irreparable harm if she was not admitted and funded. It also held that her letters did not provide the factual showing necessary to establish a clear or substantial likelihood of success. The court therefore denied her request for a preliminary injunction. It also concluded that no evidentiary hearing was required because Weiss had not requested one and had not made the required showing of irreparable harm.

The court rejected Weiss’s assertion that its earlier order seeking pro bono counsel had determined that she could win her case. The court clarified that it had found only that her claim was likely to be substantial, that discovery was needed, and that pro bono counsel could assist her; it had not made a merits determination.

Request to Disqualify the Attorney General’s Office

Weiss argued that the New York Attorney General’s Office had a conflict because it represented defendants whom she alleged had violated state, city, federal, and CUNY laws and policies. Defendants argued that they were entitled to representation under New York law and that Weiss lacked standing to challenge the representation.

The court explained that federal courts have inherent authority to disqualify lawyers when necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of the adversarial process. Disqualification is strongly disfavored, and the party seeking it bears a heavy burden. The court rejected defendants’ reliance on a state-court standing decision, explaining that federal courts’ authority to consider disqualification comes from their own power to protect the adversary process.

The court nevertheless denied Weiss’s request because her general allegations did not show a conflict that would damage the proceedings or prevent the Attorney General’s Office from adequately representing defendants. The court also reasoned that accepting Weiss’s theory would prevent the Attorney General’s Office from defending state employees against allegations of wrongdoing. The request to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office was therefore denied.

Previously Dismissed Claims and Claim Against Letitia James

The court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, which generally requires a court to follow its earlier rulings in the same case unless there is a compelling reason to reconsider them. The court found that Weiss had not sought reconsideration and had not identified an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear legal error or manifest injustice.

The court therefore granted defendants’ request to dismiss the claims Weiss had previously reasserted in the Second Amended Complaint. The court stated that the surviving claims were: (1) Weiss’s Title VI claim against CUNY; (2) her Section 1983 claims against the CUNY Board of Trustees, Milliken, Seals, Rose, Raab, and Nord in their individual capacities; and (3) her Section 1981 claims against those defendants in their individual capacities.

Weiss also asserted a claim against Letitia James, alleging that James enabled CUNY to discriminate against American-born citizens who were not immigrants and enabled an allegedly discriminatory and illegal admissions process. The court declined to dismiss that claim at that time because it was not identical to the earlier claims against prior attorneys general, defendants had not yet briefed the request to dismiss it, and Weiss was representing herself. Defendants’ request to dismiss the claim against James was denied without prejudice to renewal, meaning defendants could raise the request again.

Disposition and Schedule

The court denied Weiss’s request for a preliminary injunction. It also denied her request to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office. It granted defendants’ request to dismiss the previously dismissed claims and denied without prejudice to renewal their request to dismiss the claim against James. The court denied as moot defendants’ June 20, 2019 motion to dismiss and directed defendants to file their anticipated motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint by December 6, 2019, with Weiss’s opposition due February 4, 2020 and defendants’ reply due March 5, 2020.