Solomon v. Fordham University

Background

Esther Solomon, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Fordham University discriminated against her during her long career as a tenured associate professor at the Gabelli School of Business. She alleged discrimination based on gender, age, and religion; unequal pay; retaliation; a hostile work environment; defamation; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and interference with current and prospective business relations. Her federal claims invoked Title VII, Title IX, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Equal Pay Act. She also asserted claims under New York statutes and common law.

The allegations covered several periods, including denied promotions, the failure to appoint her as area chair, disputes over her work as a faculty senator, events during leaves of absence, and teaching schedules beginning in 2018. Solomon alleged that Fordham assigned her an unusually heavy teaching schedule across two campuses, including 50 class sessions in Spring 2018, while male professors received lighter schedules. She also alleged that Fordham paid her about $123,000 during the 2017–2018 academic year, while two male professors whom she identified as comparators earned substantially more.

Legal standards and analysis

Fordham moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court had to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and read Solomon’s pro se complaint liberally, but it was not required to accept conclusory statements without supporting facts.

For the federal disparate-treatment discrimination claims, the court held that only the allegedly burdensome teaching schedule qualified at the pleading stage as a materially adverse employment action. The promotion and area-chair allegations were too old to support timely federal claims, although the court could consider them as background. The allegations concerning her leave period, conference expenses, and denied research funding were either too conclusory or did not show a material change in employment.

The court nevertheless found that Solomon did not adequately allege that the teaching schedule resulted from discrimination. Her proposed male comparators had different seniority or administrative responsibilities, and she did not explain in sufficient detail the job standards that applied to her or to those professors. The court also found that one isolated comment about Solomon having a “strong personality” did not establish a pattern of discriminatory remarks. Her allegations that Fordham failed to investigate her complaints were also insufficient because she did not identify the relevant investigation policy, had not clearly filed a formal complaint, and had not connected her October 2017 complaint to gender, age, or religious discrimination. The federal disparate-treatment claims were dismissed, with leave to replead.

The court held that Solomon could not pursue an employment-discrimination claim under Title IX, concluding that she did not have such a cause of action under the applicable law. It also dismissed her Equal Pay Act and related federal unequal-pay claims because the complaint did not adequately allege that Solomon and the higher-paid professors performed substantially equal work. Their different administrative positions and seniority undermined the bare assertion that they performed the same job.

The hostile-work-environment claims were dismissed because the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive and was not adequately connected to Solomon’s gender, age, or religion. Some allegations were untimely, while the remaining incidents—including alleged attacks at a meeting and being cut off during another meeting—were not described with enough specificity or severity to create an abusive work environment.

The Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act retaliation claims were also dismissed, with leave to replead. The court found that Solomon’s earlier complaints did not clearly communicate that she was complaining about discrimination based on a protected characteristic. Her later protected activity, including an email to Fordham’s compliance office and her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint, was followed only by conduct that the court found was not an adverse employment action, such as reminders about professional responsibilities, advice about public statements, and changes to class locations and times. The Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim was dismissed because the Spring 2019 schedule was no different from the schedule Solomon had received for Spring 2018.

State-law claims and other motions

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over Solomon’s New York statutory and common-law claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court granted Fordham’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and gave Solomon until April 15, 2020, to file a second amended complaint. Discovery was stayed until Fordham answered a second amended complaint or the court denied a motion to dismiss one. Solomon’s motion concerning subpoenas and document requests was denied without prejudice, allowing her to refile it if the discovery stay were lifted. Fordham’s motion to stay discovery was denied as moot.