Forman v. New York City Department of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-08156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Forman v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Torres granted Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss time-barred civil-rights retaliation claims.
Erik Forman’s federal civil-rights retaliation claims based on alleged acts occurring before August 30, 2016 were dismissed through the granted portion of the defendants’ partial motion. The New York City Department of Education, Julie Nariman, and Yan Wang obtained that ruling.
What happened
Erik Forman, representing himself, sued the New York City Department of Education and two school administrators under a federal civil-rights law, alleging retaliation for serving as a union chapter leader. He described alleged retaliatory acts from 2015 through September 2, 2016.
The defendants argued that most of the claims were filed too late. The court applied New York’s three-year deadline for these claims and rejected Forman’s arguments that his administrative complaint or the continuing-violation rule extended that deadline.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss the claims based on acts occurring before August 30, 2016. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for alleged acts occurring on or after that date.
The detailed version
- Forman v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-08156
- John Cronan
- Sept. 16, 2020
Background
Erik Forman sued the New York City Department of Education, Julie Nariman, and Yan Wang. The complaint asserted one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local actors for violating federal rights. Forman alleged that the defendants retaliated against him because he served as a union chapter leader.
According to the allegations summarized by the court, Forman was hired as an English-as-a-Second-Language teacher in
- He announced his intent to run for union leadership in spring 2015 and was elected union chapter leader on June 4,
- He alleged that Nariman then gave him unfavorable and low performance evaluations, observed his teaching more closely, and failed to grant his teaching preferences. He also alleged that he criticized the school’s English-as-a-Second-Language program, safety plan, and curriculum in July
- The alleged retaliation continued through September 2,
- Forman filed a retaliation claim with the Public Employee Relations Board on October 10, 2016, and later filed this federal case.
Motion and analysis
The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that a statute-of-limitations defense may be decided at this stage when the time bar appears on the face of the complaint.
The court held that § 1983 claims brought in New York are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Because Forman filed this lawsuit on August 30, 2019, the court held that claims based on acts occurring before August 30, 2016 were time-barred. The court also held that filing an administrative proceeding did not pause or extend the § 1983 limitations period.
The court rejected Forman’s argument that the continuing-violation doctrine applied to his free-speech-related claims. It explained that poor performance evaluations and disciplinary proceedings are separate acts, rather than one ongoing violation, and found that Forman had not alleged a continuing discriminatory practice or policy beyond those separate acts.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss the complaint. Specifically, it granted the motion as to Forman’s § 1983 claims accruing before August 30, 2016. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for alleged acts occurring on or after August 30, 2016. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 11 and 18.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.