Kalia v. City University of New York

Background

Ravi Kalia, a tenured history professor at City College of New York within the City University of New York system, alleged that he faced discrimination and retaliation in connection with efforts to obtain distinguished-professor status and a salary supplement. He also alleged that defendants limited his duties, prevented him from teaching graduate courses and serving on committees, delayed his distinguished-professor application, and subjected him to other hostile treatment.

Kalia asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also asserted state common-law claims against the individual defendants for interference with a contract and with a potential economic advantage. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b).

Federal claims

The court concluded that Kalia’s Title VII claims based on his 2015 distinguished-professor application were untimely. He filed his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2018, and the court determined that conduct occurring before the applicable 300-day period could not support those claims. The court treated defendants’ motion concerning the August 3, 2017 email as a motion for summary judgment after giving the parties an opportunity to submit materials outside the pleadings. It held that the application’s continued consideration did not make the earlier claims timely.

The court dismissed Kalia’s Title VII discrimination claim concerning the salary supplement. It said he had abandoned the claim by failing to respond to defendants’ argument that it was implausible. The court also held that, even if the claim had not been abandoned, Kalia did not identify similarly situated employees who received different treatment or otherwise provide enough facts to support a minimal inference of discriminatory motive.

The court dismissed Kalia’s remaining retaliation claims. Although he alleged that he engaged in protected activity, defendants knew about it, and he suffered adverse employment actions, the court found no plausible causal connection. In particular, the salary-supplement decision occurred before his 2018 charge, and the alleged connection to earlier complaints was too remote. Kalia also did not identify when other alleged retaliatory actions occurred or allege that defendants referred to his 2018 charge when taking those actions.

The court dismissed the hostile-work-environment claim. It found that Kalia did not plausibly allege that the challenged treatment occurred because of his race or national origin, or that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter his work environment.

State and local claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to decide related state-law claims in the same federal case—over Kalia’s claims under New York state and city law and his common-law claims. The court noted that the state and city claims could involve different standards or limitations periods and were better left to New York state courts. It dismissed those remaining claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed all of Kalia’s claims. It entered judgment in favor of defendants and closed the case. The court also declined to grant Kalia another opportunity to amend his complaint, explaining that he had already amended once, had notice of the alleged defects, and had not requested another amendment or identified additional facts that could cure them.