Naghibolhosseini v. Haralick

Background

Nooreddin Naghibolhosseini, a Ph.D. student from Iran proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Graduate Center at the City University of New York and professors Robert Haralick, Luis Petingi, and Amotz Bar-Noy. He alleged national-origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Fox recommended granting the motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Naghibolhosseini had not first filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or obtained a Notice of Right to Sue. Naghibolhosseini objected and later submitted additional letters.

Review of the Report and Recommendation

The court found that Naghibolhosseini’s objections did not specifically address findings in the Report and Recommendation. It therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court also considered his second submission, although it did not raise specific objections. The court stated that later submissions were similar and included inappropriate remarks and additional correspondence.

The court agreed that it was appropriate to consider the motion despite procedural defects in the parties’ filings. It explained that doing so served the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s objective of securing a just and speedy determination, and that excusing the defects was particularly appropriate because Naghibolhosseini was proceeding without a lawyer.

Exhaustion and dismissal

The court modified Magistrate Judge Fox’s reasoning. Before filing a Title VII action, a person generally must present the underlying claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or an equivalent state agency. But obtaining a Notice of Right to Sue is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a Title VII claim. Instead, exhaustion is an affirmative defense that Defendants must plead and prove. An affirmative defense may be considered on a motion to dismiss when it appears on the face of the complaint and documents incorporated into it.

Here, the complaint stated that Naghibolhosseini had not filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and had not received a Notice of Right to Sue before commencing the action. He later obtained a Notice of Right to Sue two months after filing the lawsuit. The court recognized that the exhaustion requirement can sometimes be waived, subject to estoppel, or equitably extended, but found no good cause to waive it in this case.

Disposition

The court adopted in part and modified in part the Report and Recommendation, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.