Woolfolk v. New York City Department of Education
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-03706
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Woolfolk v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Abrams dismissed the federal and most state-law claims, dismissing McDowell’s remaining state claims without prejudice.
Ellen Woolfolk’s age-discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims were dismissed. The claims against the New York City Department of Education, Paul Cannon, and Kevin Green were dismissed with prejudice; the remaining New York State and New York City claims against Malcolm McDowell were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Woolfolk v. New York City Department of Education involved Ellen Woolfolk’s claims that the Department of Education and school administrators discriminated against her because of her age, created a hostile workplace, and retaliated against her under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.
Woolfolk, who represented herself, described negative evaluations, workplace treatment, an assignment to the Absent Teacher Reserve program, and comments about retirement. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint because the court lacked authority to hear some claims and because the allegations did not adequately state legal claims.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendants’ motion. She dismissed the federal age-discrimination claims and the state and city claims against the Department of Education, Cannon, and Green with prejudice, while dismissing the remaining state and city claims against McDowell without prejudice after declining to decide them in federal court.
The detailed version
- Woolfolk v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-03706
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 18, 2020
Background
Ellen Woolfolk, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Education, Paul Cannon, Kevin Green, and Malcolm McDowell. She asserted age-discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Woolfolk alleged that Cannon and Green took discriminatory or retaliatory actions against her while she taught at P.S. 140X between approximately 2012 and 2015. She also alleged that she was placed in the Absent Teacher Reserve program in 2016, received an unsatisfactory rating in 2018, and received unsatisfactory observations and an overall unsatisfactory rating at P.S. 72X in 2019. She further alleged that McDowell asked when she planned to retire.
Before filing this lawsuit, Woolfolk filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights in August 2018. That agency found no probable cause, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted that finding and issued her permission to sue. Woolfolk filed this action in April 2019 and amended her complaint in July 2019. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s power to hear a case, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.
Federal age-discrimination claims
The court first held that individuals cannot be sued for damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It therefore dismissed Woolfolk’s federal claims against Cannon, Green, and McDowell.
The court also held that the federal law required Woolfolk to file an administrative discrimination charge within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment action. Because she filed her state agency charge on August 8, 2018, actions before October 12, 2017, were untimely. The court rejected Woolfolk’s argument that the earlier events formed a continuing violation because she did not show that they were part of a continuing discriminatory policy or mechanism.
As to the timely allegations, the court held that Woolfolk had not plausibly alleged an adverse employment action. A negative performance review alone generally does not qualify unless it causes a material change in employment conditions. Woolfolk remained employed, and she did not allege a reduction in salary, a demotion, a title change, a loss of benefits, or a material reduction in responsibilities. The court also found that the possible effect of the ratings on future teaching opportunities was too speculative.
The court dismissed the federal retaliation claim because Woolfolk did not plausibly allege that the defendants knew about the protected activity when the alleged retaliation occurred. The court also dismissed the hostile-work-environment claim because McDowell’s single question about retirement was not sufficiently severe or repeated to create a legally hostile workplace.
New York State and New York City claims
The court held that Woolfolk’s state and city claims against the Department of Education, Cannon, and Green were barred by the election-of-remedies rule. That rule generally prevents a person who has filed a related complaint with the state human-rights agency from bringing the same claims in court. The court treated this rule as jurisdictional, meaning it dismissed those claims because it lacked authority to hear them.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the remaining state and city claims against McDowell after dismissing all federal claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Woolfolk’s claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as well as her New York State and New York City claims against the Department of Education, Cannon, and Green, with prejudice. The court dismissed the remaining New York State and New York City claims against McDowell without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.