Siclari v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Yvonne O. Siclari, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Education, Anthony Cosentino, Joseph Miller, and Hanin Hasweh. She brought claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged age discrimination and retaliation.

Siclari alleged that Cosentino made comments referring to her retirement and the next chapter of her life. After she was placed in the Absent Teacher Reserve pool, she alleged that Miller gave her multiple unsatisfactory observations and that she received unsatisfactory annual ratings. She also alleged disciplinary actions, reassignment, Section 3020-a disciplinary charges, a fine, and other consequences. She filed an age-discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, which was cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court considered the complaint's plausible allegations as true and gave Siclari's filings the more generous reading required for a person representing herself.

Rulings on the federal age-discrimination claims

The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not impose personal liability on individual defendants. To the extent Siclari intended to sue the individual defendants under that statute, those claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The court also held that allegations based on events before September 17, 2017, could not support the federal claims because they were outside the applicable 300-day filing period. The court rejected Siclari's argument that the events formed a continuing violation. It explained that the allegations involved different schools, people, and types of conduct, and did not show one continuing discriminatory policy or mechanism. The earlier events could still serve as background evidence for a timely claim.

The court concluded that Siclari did not plausibly plead a hostile work environment. The alleged incidents were not sufficiently continuous, severe, or pervasive, and the two age-related comments, unsatisfactory ratings, and badge requirement did not meet that standard.

The court also concluded that Siclari did not plausibly plead age discrimination. It recognized that the timely Section 3020-a charges could qualify as materially adverse employment action, but found insufficient facts connecting the alleged actions to her age. The court found no adequate connection between Cosentino's comments and the later actions by Miller or the Department of Education, and it found that the allegations about younger teachers lacked enough detail to show that they were similarly situated.

The retaliation claim also failed. Although the disciplinary letter, reassignment, disciplinary charges, additional specifications, and fine could qualify as adverse actions, the court found insufficient facts showing that the defendants took those actions because Siclari had filed her state administrative complaint. The court held that the timing alone, including the five-month gap before the first alleged retaliatory action, was not enough without additional supporting facts.

The motion to dismiss the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims against the Department of Education was granted. The opinion states that the federal claims were dismissed in their entirety, but its conclusion expressly identifies dismissal with prejudice for the individual-defendant claims and does not separately specify a prejudice designation for the Department of Education claims.

State and city claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Siclari's remaining claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Leave to amend and final disposition

Siclari asked to file a second amended complaint. Because she had already received an opportunity to amend and the amended complaint had not corrected the identified problems, the court denied her request for leave to amend. The conclusion states that the claims were dismissed with prejudice in discussing the prior opportunity to amend, while separately stating that the remaining state and city claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, directed entry of judgment and closure of the case, and stated that the earlier motion to dismiss the original complaint was denied as moot. The opinion also contains references to Title VII claims and a person identified as “Ms. Stinson,” although those references do not match the caption and claims described elsewhere in the opinion.