James v. Cuny-John Jay College

Background

Terrell James worked in John Jay College’s facilities department beginning in 2013. He alleged that he experienced race discrimination and retaliation, including undesirable or out-of-title assignments, excessive scrutiny, work on tall ladders, loss of overtime opportunities, and problems involving pay differentials. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York common law. He also alleged retaliation for raising safety concerns; the court construed that claim as arising under New York’s public-employer whistleblower statute, New York Civil Service Law § 75-b, rather than New York Labor Law § 240.

James had previously sued John Jay and others in a related action. That action was dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, and the court treated that dismissal as a decision on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion. While the appeal in that action was pending, James filed this case.

Res judicata ruling

Res judicata, also called claim preclusion, generally prevents a party from bringing later claims that were or could have been brought in an earlier action involving the same parties and related events. The court held that claims based on events before November 9, 2018—the final date on which James could amend his complaint in the earlier action—were barred when they were sufficiently related to the earlier case.

The court held that the res judicata defense did not bar claims against Stewart and Jeffrey based on discriminatory or retaliatory conduct after November 9, 2018. It also held that the pay-differential allegations against John Jay, Singh, and Gray were not barred because the earlier complaint did not allege that James was denied differential pay because of his race. The court held that claims concerning James’s 2016 Letter of Guidance were barred, including his request to have his personnel file changed. The court also concluded that the whistleblower claim based on schedule changes and lost overtime was barred because those schedule changes occurred in 2017 and had been alleged in the earlier case.

Failure-to-state-a-claim ruling

The court denied the motions to dismiss the claims alleging that, after November 9, 2018, Stewart and Jeffrey assigned James undesirable or out-of-title work, required him to work alone on a ladder, and treated white employees more favorably. Those allegations supported claims for race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment against John Jay, Stewart, and Jeffrey at the pleading stage.

The court dismissed the pay-differential claims against Singh and Gray. Although James alleged that they had approval responsibilities and that mostly white employees received differential payments, he did not allege that either individual personally made or rejected the pay decision, knew about the alleged racial disparity, or caused the alleged injury. The court dismissed the related claims under Section 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court also dismissed James’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) against John Jay because that provision supplies damages remedies for certain Title VII claims but is not an independent claim, and the complaint did not allege a Title VII violation. It dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the alleged conduct did not meet New York’s requirement of extreme and outrageous conduct.

Sovereign immunity and final disposition

The court held that John Jay, as a senior college of the City University of New York, is an arm of New York State. Sovereign immunity therefore barred the damages claims against John Jay, including claims under Section 1983 and parallel state and city laws. The court dismissed all claims against John Jay. It construed the claims against Stewart and Jeffrey as claims against them individually, not in their official capacities; the remaining claims against those two individuals could proceed in their individual capacities.

Judge Denise Cote granted the defendants’ January 17 and February 13 motions to dismiss in part. James may proceed with his Section 1983, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims against Stewart and Jeffrey individually based on alleged discriminatory and retaliatory conduct after November 9, 2018. The motions were granted as to all other counts and claims, and all claims against John Jay, Singh, and Gray were dismissed.