Farooqi v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

Mahmooda Farooqi sued the New York Department of Education and three administrators at Benjamin Banneker Academy for Community Development, alleging retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Farooqi had worked for the Department of Education since 2001 and taught chemistry at Benjamin Banneker from 2006 through 2018.

The Department approved Farooqi’s requests for FMLA leave to care for her daughter in 2016 and 2017. After her first leave, a disciplinary report was placed in her personnel file after an administrator observed that her students were left unattended while she used the restroom. In 2017, the school temporarily announced that it would discontinue its chemistry program, but it later decided not to do so. Farooqi also received an overall “effective” performance rating for the 2016–2017 school year.

After Farooqi returned from her second leave in December 2017, she asked to leave work early for her daughter’s medical appointment. She testified that an administrator yelled at her and refused to let her leave. In February 2018, five students reported that Farooqi had made non-consensual physical contact with them during class. The Department investigated, filed eight disciplinary charges, and reassigned Farooqi to clerical work outside the classroom while retaining her title as a chemistry teacher. In a disciplinary arbitration, the arbitrator found her guilty of one count of corporal punishment, one charge of verbal abuse, and one charge of failing to supervise, imposed a $6,000 fine, required training, and dismissed the remaining charges.

Farooqi’s amended complaint also asserted other discrimination and related claims. An earlier opinion dismissed all claims except her FMLA retaliation claim. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, asking the court to resolve the remaining claim without a trial.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but that party must provide specific evidence rather than conclusions or speculation.

FMLA retaliation claims use a burden-shifting framework. A plaintiff must first show that she exercised FMLA rights, was qualified for her position, suffered an adverse employment action, and experienced that action under circumstances suggesting retaliation. The employer must then identify a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. The plaintiff must provide evidence that the stated reason was a pretext, meaning a cover for unlawful retaliation.

Court’s analysis

Farooqi claimed retaliation based on her two FMLA leaves and on her January 23, 2018 conversation with an administrator. The court concluded that she had not provided evidence that she engaged in protected activity during that conversation. Her testimony showed that she told the administrator, “you know my situation, you know my daughter,” but she also testified that she did not accuse him of retaliation or say anything else opposing an FMLA violation.

The court treated two alleged actions—being assigned forensics courses instead of chemistry and being yelled at—as insufficiently serious to constitute adverse employment actions. It assumed for purposes of analysis that the 2017 performance review was an adverse action and found that several other alleged actions were sufficiently serious under the retaliation standard. Even so, the court found no sufficient evidence connecting those actions to Farooqi’s FMLA leave.

For the September 2016 disciplinary report, Farooqi did not dispute that she had left her students unattended, and the arbitration award confirmed that finding. The court found no evidence that the report was motivated by her earlier leave.

For the planned discontinuation of the chemistry program and the 2017 performance review, the court noted that more than a year had passed since Farooqi’s first leave and that she had not taken FMLA leave during the relevant school year. The court held that her speculation about the defendants’ motives was insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

For the February 2018 investigation, the court found that five student complaints supplied a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for investigating allegations of physical contact. The arbitrator’s statement that she was inclined to believe Farooqi had been harassed did not find that the alleged harassment was caused by FMLA leave, and the arbitration award did not show that the investigation was improperly motivated.

For the September 2018 reassignment to clerical duties, the court found no evidence linking the reassignment to Farooqi’s leave or showing that the disciplinary charges were a pretext. The court emphasized the intervening student complaints, investigation, disciplinary charges, and arbitration award.

Disposition

Judge Denise Cote granted the defendants’ November 18, 2020 motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.