Karunakaran v. BMCC/Cuny City University of New York

Background

Chitra Karunakaran, a former CUNY professor at BMCC, sued CUNY, BMCC, and several BMCC employees. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Karunakaran alleged that a student became verbally and physically aggressive toward her in February and March 2018, and that defendants did not adequately respond to her complaints. She also alleged that defendants restricted her use of an online teaching tool, isolated her from other teachers, threatened not to reappoint her, and denied her reappointment for the fall 2018 semester. She claimed these actions were based on her race, national origin, and age, and were retaliation for her complaints and union activity. She initially filed the case without a lawyer and later filed an amended complaint with counsel.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true but did not accept legal conclusions or unsupported assertions. To survive dismissal, the complaint had to include enough facts to make the alleged entitlement to relief plausible rather than merely possible.

Older Workers Benefit Protection Act claims

The court dismissed Karunakaran’s claims under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. It followed decisions holding that the Act does not create a separate private claim for age discrimination or retaliation. The court distinguished authority recognizing a claim involving a waiver provision because no such waiver was involved here and remedies under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act were available.

Title VII and age-discrimination claims

The court dismissed the federal discrimination claims based on race, national origin, and age. Although Karunakaran alleged that she was denied reappointment and that younger, non-Indian professors were treated more favorably, the court found that she provided too few factual details about the alleged comparators or the connection between the denial of reappointment and discriminatory intent. Statements made on information and belief, without supporting facts, were not enough to create the required inference of discrimination.

The court also dismissed the federal retaliation claims. It concluded that Karunakaran’s March complaint focused on contingent labor and did not reasonably indicate that she was opposing discrimination prohibited by Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Her informal complaints concerned the student’s behavior, and her union activities were not alleged to involve opposition to discrimination prohibited by those statutes. The court also found insufficient allegations of a causal connection between the complaints and the alleged adverse actions. It noted that a threat of non-reappointment preceded the March complaint, and that Karunakaran did not adequately allege that her informal complaints preceded the threat.

The court further concluded that the alleged student conduct—verbal abuse and an attempt to grab papers and other materials—was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment. Even assuming the conduct could satisfy that requirement, the court found that Karunakaran had not provided enough facts showing that she was treated differently because of her race, national origin, or age, or that the student acted with discriminatory intent.

State and city claims

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, over the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims. The court dismissed those claims as well.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted Karunakaran leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by March 12, 2021, even though she had not requested permission to amend. The court stated that the case would be closed if she did not file the new complaint.