James v. Borough of Manhattan Community College City of University of New York

Background

Ayleen James alleged that she worked as an adjunct lecturer in the Speech, Communications, and Theatre Arts Department at Borough of Manhattan Community College from 2001 through spring 2019. In 2018, she received a one-year guidance appointment. She alleged that she received satisfactory peer observations, student communications praising her work, and a nomination for the college’s Distinguished Teacher Award.

On May 13, 2019, James was denied a three-year adjunct teaching contract. She alleged that the decision was based on her race, sex, and age. She identified herself as an African American woman and alleged that the adjunct lecturers who received the contracts included white men, an older white woman, and a younger Black woman. She also alleged that she was the oldest African American woman in the department eligible for the contract.

James asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged race, age, and gender discrimination, retaliation, a hostile work environment, unequal employment terms, and denial of employment opportunities. She filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 5, 2020. The agency dismissed the charge and issued a notice of the right to sue. James filed this action on December 14, 2020.

Motion and Concessions

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. James conceded that Borough of Manhattan Community College was not the proper defendant and that the claims should have been asserted against the City University of New York. The court therefore dismissed the college from the action and substituted the City University of New York in its place.

James also conceded that she had not filed a required notice of claim, that her claims against Eva Kolbusz-Kijne should be dismissed for lack of personal involvement or individual liability, that her Section 1981 claim should be treated as a Section 1983 claim, and that she had not exhausted her administrative remedies for gender discrimination.

Court’s Analysis

The court dismissed all claims against Kolbusz-Kijne. It explained that individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and James had not plausibly alleged Kolbusz-Kijne’s personal involvement for the other claims.

The court dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims because James had not filed a notice of claim. The court also stated that those claims were time-barred because the challenged conduct occurred on or before May 13, 2019, while James filed suit on December 14, 2020.

The court dismissed James’s Section 1981 claim. Because the defendants were state actors, the court treated Section 1983 as the exclusive vehicle for pursuing the asserted Section 1981 rights. The court held that James had not alleged that the denial of her contract resulted from a municipal policy, custom, or practice. She also did not allege that Kolbusz-Kijne had final policymaking authority for the City University of New York or the college.

The court dismissed the gender-discrimination claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. James’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge alleged race and age discrimination, but not gender discrimination. The court also held that claims concerning conduct before May 10, 2019 were untimely because the charge was filed on March 5, 2020, more than 300 days after that conduct.

The court did not dismiss the federal discrimination claims based solely on the 90-day deadline for filing suit after receipt of the right-to-sue notice. Although a mailing presumption would have produced an earlier receipt date, James alleged that she received the notice on September 15, 2020, which was sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to rebut that presumption.

Race and Age Discrimination

The court held that James had adequately alleged that she belonged to protected groups, was qualified for the three-year contract, and suffered an adverse employment action when the contract was denied. But she did not allege enough facts to support even the minimal inference of discriminatory motivation required at the pleading stage.

For race discrimination, James did not identify direct evidence of racial bias. Reports and articles about a lack of diversity at the City University of New York did not identify a specific policy causing the disparity or allege intentional discrimination. Her allegations that other contract recipients were less qualified did not provide enough information to show that they were similarly situated in all material respects. The court also held that she did not identify a specific employment practice supporting a disparate-impact claim.

For age discrimination, James alleged that she was the oldest eligible African American woman in the department and that some contract recipients were younger. The court held that these allegations, without additional facts showing discriminatory motive, did not plausibly allege that age was the decisive cause of the denial.

Hostile Work Environment

The court dismissed the hostile-work-environment claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because James did not include that theory in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge, and the claim was not reasonably related to the race and age discrimination allegations that she did include.

The court also explained that the claim would fail on other grounds even if it had been exhausted and timely. The allegations concerning department happy hours, a supposed climate of fear, a refusal to explain the contract decision, and an incident in which an African American colleague was allegedly verbally berated did not describe conduct severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of James’s employment. James also did not allege that she personally experienced or perceived the workplace as hostile or that the alleged conduct was connected to her race, sex, or age.

Retaliation

The court dismissed the retaliation claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because James did not include retaliation in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge and the allegations were not sufficiently related to that charge.

The court separately held that the retaliation allegations were insufficient on their merits. James alleged that her unfavorable answers to an equity survey and a May 2, 2019 email complaining about discrimination contributed to the May 13 denial of her contract. The court treated those complaints as protected activity but held that her conclusory statement did not establish that the protected activity was the necessary cause of the denial. The court also held that the timing alone did not support retaliation because concerns about her student evaluations allegedly predated her protected activity.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Claims that were not administratively exhausted or were barred by statutes of limitations were dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The dismissal was without prejudice to James filing an amended complaint within 90 days for claims that were not time-barred. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail James a copy of the opinion and close the listed motions.