Bhatnagar v. The New School

Background

Sankalp Bhatnagar, an American citizen of Indian race and national origin, enrolled in the Parsons School of Design’s Master of Fine Arts in Transdisciplinary Design program in 2016. Beginning in 2018, he had conflicts with professors and staff concerning his thesis, which criticized the school’s design master’s program and various professors and advisers. He requested an additional year and a change of thesis advisers.

The school ultimately told Bhatnagar that he would not receive an extension but could receive a degree without completing his thesis. It granted him passing grades in courses for which he had not completed the coursework, conferred his degree, and later barred him from the school’s facilities. Records obtained by Bhatnagar showed that school personnel had concerns about his mental health and whether he posed a security threat. The records also described the school’s interception of a letter addressed to him and a search of his bags.

The complaint included claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, race and national-origin discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, a claim under the New York State Education Law, and breach of contract. The school’s motion challenged the race and national-origin claims and the New York State Education Law claim, but did not challenge the disability-discrimination or breach-of-contract claims.

Race and National-Origin Claims

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not accept legal conclusions stated as facts. The complaint must include enough factual matter to make the claim plausible.

For the Title VI and New York State Human Rights Law claims, the complaint needed to provide plausible support for at least a minimal inference that the school acted because of Bhatnagar’s race or national origin. The court found that it did not meet that standard. Although the complaint alleged that the school feared Bhatnagar because of his race and national origin, the specific facts instead supported an inference that school personnel were concerned about his mental health and the safety of others.

The court also rejected Bhatnagar’s argument that discrimination could be inferred because other students received thesis extensions. The complaint did not provide facts showing that those students were similarly situated to him. The court likewise found no factual allegations involving remarks about his skin color or national origin, or conduct linking his race or ethnicity to terrorism.

The court applied the same result to the New York City Human Rights Law claims. Although that law uses a broader standard and requires allegations that the plaintiff was treated less well because of discriminatory intent, the court found that Bhatnagar’s allegations remained conclusory and did not provide enough factual support for a discrimination inference.

The court dismissed the race and national-origin claims under Title VI, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It allowed Bhatnagar to seek leave to replead those claims within the specified time by filing a letter motion explaining how an amended complaint would plausibly state them and attaching a marked draft.

New York State Education Law Claim

Bhatnagar alleged that the school violated New York State Education Law by giving him passing grades without completed coursework and awarding him a master’s degree without requiring completion of his thesis. He alleged that this harmed his ability to enroll in a design Ph.D. program. The court found that he did not explain how those personal injuries amounted to a violation of the statute.

Bhatnagar also alleged that the school’s conduct harmed the quality of education in New York because the school had an education plan registered under the statute and regulations requiring students to complete a thesis. The court held that the statute’s legislative scheme did not support a private right of action. The statute addressed the development and approval of institutional education plans, not private enforcement of those plans, and provided a process involving state educational authorities and the governor.

Disposition

The opinion explains the court’s May 5, 2021, order granting the defendant’s partial motion to dismiss. The order granted the motion to dismiss Count 3 and Count 7 in their entirety and Counts 4 and 5 in part, as to the race and national-origin discrimination claims. The disability-discrimination claims in Counts 1 and 2, the disability portions of Counts 4 and 5, and the breach-of-contract claim in Count 6 survived. Judge Schofield did not state that the dismissed claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.