Francois v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Eugenie Francois sued the New York City Department of Education without a lawyer. She alleged that school administrators discriminated against her because of her age, created a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged her—that is, made working conditions so difficult that she retired. 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.

Francois alleged that administrators made age-related comments between 2014 and 2016, denied several requests concerning her performance reviews, gave her lower ratings than younger teachers, assigned younger co-teachers to assist her, and issued an ineffective formal observation while she was absent because of illness. She retired effective August 31, 2017, shortly after turning 62. She later learned that she had received an ineffective overall rating for the 2016–2017 school year and appealed that rating. The Department denied the appeal on May 31, 2018.

Francois filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 14, 2018 and received a notice allowing her to sue. She then filed this federal case on December 4, 2019. The Department moved to dismiss the complaint.

Federal age-discrimination claims

The Department argued that Francois’s claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act were time-barred. The Act generally requires a claimant to file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge within 300 days after the alleged discriminatory act.

The court rejected Francois’s argument that the alleged conduct was a continuing violation. It treated her alleged constructive discharge on August 31, 2017, her receipt of the ineffective rating on October 11, 2017, and the Department’s denial of her appeal on May 31, 2018, as separate, individual events rather than a single ongoing discriminatory policy.

Because Francois filed her charge on August 14, 2018, the court ruled that acts occurring before October 18, 2017, were outside the 300-day period. The court therefore found that the constructive-discharge claim and the claim based on learning of the ineffective rating were time-barred.

The court also ruled that the Department’s denial of the appeal did not qualify as a new discriminatory act. It viewed the appeal and its denial as efforts to challenge or remedy the earlier rating, not as separate discrimination. The appeal process therefore did not extend the deadline. The court concluded that Francois had not alleged a discriminatory act occurring within the applicable period and dismissed her federal claims.

State and city claims

After dismissing the federal claims, only Francois’s claims under New York State and New York City law remained. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. It concluded that considerations including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts favored declining jurisdiction at this early stage.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the Department’s motion to dismiss, except that Francois’s New York State and New York City claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court otherwise denied Francois leave to replead, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.