Park v. New York University College of Dentistry
- Kimba Wood
- 1:19-cv-03901
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Park v. New York University College of Dentistry, Judge Wood granted Defendants summary judgment on federal claims, declined state claims, and closed the case.
Jaclyn J. Park’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims against New York University College of Dentistry and David Hershkowitz were resolved in Defendants’ favor; the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.
What happened
Jaclyn J. Park, a part-time dental instructor, applied several times for a full-time Clinical Educator position at New York University College of Dentistry but was not selected. She claimed that the decisions were based on her race and national origin and that Defendants retaliated after she complained about discrimination.
The court concluded that Park did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find intentional discrimination. It also concluded that she did not show a connection between her complaint and her later rejection. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to decide Park’s state-law claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and New York Labor Law Section 741.
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, entered judgment in their favor, directed the Clerk to close the case, and terminated the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Park v. New York University College of Dentistry · No. 1:19-cv-03901
- Kimba Wood
- June 23, 2021
Background
Jaclyn J. Park, a Korean American dentist, worked as a part-time Adjunct Clinical Instructor in New York University College of Dentistry’s Department of Cariology and Comprehensive Care. From 2014 through 2019, she applied unsuccessfully for full-time Clinical Educator positions. Park alleged that New York University College of Dentistry and David Hershkowitz discriminated against her based on race and national origin and retaliated after she complained about discrimination. She brought claims under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Labor Law Section 741.
Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.
Section 1981 Discrimination Claims
The court applied the three-step burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Defendants provided nondiscriminatory reasons for selecting other candidates, including those candidates’ education, clinical and teaching experience, research, publications, professional contributions, and contributions to the university. The court noted Park’s admissions that she lacked several qualifications or experiences possessed by the selected candidates.
The court held that Park did not meet her burden of showing that Defendants’ stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Park did not identify evidence that members of the Hiring Committee, the Department’s chairs, Hershkowitz, or others made racially or nationally oriented comments. The court found that Hershkowitz’s statement, “I already know who you are,” when he left before Park’s 2016 interview, was an unsupported and ambiguous stray remark. The court also rejected Park’s other arguments, including her reliance on the selection of Caucasian men for three recent openings, her belief that she was qualified, and an internal statement that she was “not a good fit.” The court therefore dismissed Park’s Section 1981 race and national-origin discrimination claims.
Section 1981 Retaliation Claim
Park alleged that Defendants rejected her in January 2019 in retaliation for her October 2018 complaint to Department and university personnel. The court held that she failed to establish a causal connection between the complaint and the rejection. It explained that NYUCD had not selected Park both before and after her complaint because, according to Defendants’ position, she was not the strongest candidate. The court also held that the approximately three-month gap, without another basis for inferring retaliation, was insufficient to establish causation. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1981 retaliation claim.
State-Law Claims and Disposition
After dismissing all claims arising under federal law, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Park’s claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and New York Labor Law Section 741. The court then granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, terminated the pending motion, and closed the case.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.