Dodd v. City University of New York

Background

Lynda G. Dodd alleged that the City University of New York (CUNY), Vincent Boudreau, Bruce Cronin, and John Krinsky retaliated against her by denying her tenure and reappointment as a professor. Dodd had been diagnosed with muscular sclerosis and sought workplace accommodations. She also filed internal discrimination and retaliation complaints. After a 2016 settlement gave her two additional years to apply for tenure, she alleged that the defendants violated the agreement and retaliated against her. The alleged retaliation culminated in the denial of tenure and reappointment in 2018, which ended her employment at CUNY.

After summary judgment, the claims remaining for trial included Dodd’s Rehabilitation Act claim against CUNY; her Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) claims against Boudreau; and her NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against Cronin and Krinsky. The defendants filed a motion in limine, meaning a request to control what evidence or issues could be presented at trial. The motion principally sought to prevent Dodd from presenting evidence of back pay to the jury. Back pay means wages lost between an alleged wrongful termination and the court’s judgment. The defendants also moved to exclude front pay, which concerns wages lost after judgment until reinstatement or, if reinstatement is not feasible, future lost earnings.

Rulings on Back Pay Under State and City Law

The court held that back pay under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL is legal relief, meaning monetary damages that may be decided by a jury. The defendants conceded that point but argued that Boudreau, Cronin, and Krinsky could not be liable for back pay because CUNY—not the individual defendants—paid Dodd’s salary. The court rejected that argument. It explained that courts often impose joint and several liability under these laws on both an employer and individual employees who participated in retaliation. CUNY’s immunity from NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims did not protect the individual defendants from potential liability under those laws. Dodd therefore could present her back-pay claim against Boudreau, Cronin, and Krinsky to the jury.

Ruling on Back Pay Under the Rehabilitation Act

The defendants relied mainly on decisions treating back pay as equitable relief under Title VII, meaning relief traditionally decided by a judge rather than a jury. The court found that comparison inapplicable. CUNY is a recipient of federal funds, so the relevant Rehabilitation Act provision incorporates the remedies of Title VI, not the remedies applicable to federal employees under Title VII. Title VI permits traditional legal and equitable remedies, and the court concluded that back pay under this provision is compensatory monetary relief. Because money damages are generally legal relief, the court held that Dodd was entitled to have a jury decide her back-pay claim against CUNY under the Rehabilitation Act.

Disposition

Dodd clarified that she would not seek a jury verdict on front pay, so the court granted, as unopposed, the defendants’ motion insofar as it concerned front pay. The court denied in full the defendants’ motion to preclude jury consideration of back pay and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer did not decide the underlying retaliation claims in this opinion; the decision addressed what back-pay evidence and issues could be presented to the jury at the scheduled trial.