Weiss v. City University of New York

Background

Faigy Rachel Weiss sued the City University of New York (CUNY), the CUNY Board of Trustees, and CUNY officials over the rejection of her application to the Master of Social Work program at Hunter College’s Silberman School of Social Work. She alleged discrimination connected to the admissions process, including discrimination based on race, national origin, skin color, and religion. Weiss proceeded without a lawyer.

Earlier in the case, the court dismissed many claims but allowed a Title VI claim against CUNY and claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 against certain individual defendants to continue. In the Second Amended Complaint, Weiss also sued New York Attorney General Letitia James in her official and individual capacities. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which permits dismissal based on the pleadings after the pleadings are complete.

The court treated the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, but emphasized that it was not finding those allegations to be true.

Claims Against CUNY Officials

The defendants argued that the CUNY Board members, James Milliken, Jennifer Raab, and Roberta Nord were not personally involved in the alleged discrimination. The court declined to reconsider its earlier conclusion that Weiss had adequately alleged their personal involvement in implementing, changing, or overseeing the admissions process. The court therefore declined to dismiss the specified claims under §§ 1981 and 1983 against the CUNY Board of Trustees, Milliken, Raab, and Nord.

The court also rejected qualified immunity for the CUNY officials addressed in its analysis. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from personal liability for damages unless their conduct violated a clearly established legal right. The court held that Weiss had plausibly alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. It also held that reasonable university officials would have understood that intentionally excluding applicants because of characteristics such as race or religion could violate clearly established rights.

In particular, the court relied on allegations that an admissions official said the school’s group interviews were intended to exclude conservatives and that Jews from religious backgrounds were too conservative to be social workers. The court stated that these allegations plausibly showed discriminatory intent and religious disfavor. These were findings about the sufficiency of the allegations at the dismissal stage, not factual findings after trial.

Claims Against Attorney General James

The court granted the motion to dismiss Weiss’s claims against Attorney General James in both her official and individual capacities. As to official-capacity claims, the court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred damages claims. Although prospective injunctive relief can sometimes proceed against a state official, the court held that the specific relief Weiss sought—requiring James to recuse herself, provide specified legal services, and investigate or stop CUNY’s alleged discrimination—was unavailable because federal courts generally cannot compel state officials to take discretionary actions.

As to the individual-capacity claims, the court held that Weiss had not alleged that James participated in denying her admission, helped create the admissions policy, or supervised the CUNY officials involved. The court therefore concluded that the allegations did not establish James’s personal involvement.

New York State Human Rights Law Claims

Weiss asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of claims under New York State Human Rights Law §§ 292 and 296. She argued that a 2019 amendment expanding the definition of educational institutions to include public colleges and universities should apply to her claims. The court declined to reinstate those claims because the amendment did not clearly state that it applied retroactively.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to Weiss’s claims against Attorney General James in her official and individual capacities, and those claims were dismissed. It denied the motion as to Weiss’s §§ 1981 and 1983 claims against the CUNY Board of Trustees, Milliken, Raab, and Nord. The court declined to revive Weiss’s claims under New York State Human Rights Law §§ 292 and 296. The defendants were ordered to answer the Second Amended Complaint within twenty-one days.