Karunakaran v. BMCC/Cuny City University of New York

Background

Chitra Karunakaran, who had been a professor at Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), part of the City University of New York (CUNY), sued CUNY, BMCC, and several current and former BMCC employees. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged discrimination based on race, national origin, and age, as well as retaliation.

Karunakaran alleged that a student verbally and physically acted aggressively toward her in February and March 2018. She said that she complained to Defendants, but they did not intervene. She also alleged that she was denied reappointment for the Fall 2018 semester and replaced by a younger professor. She identified various activities as union or whistleblowing activities, including questions and suggestions concerning printers, online classes, an equity and inclusion task force, attendance information, student conduct, and mail delivery.

Karunakaran first filed the case without a lawyer. After counsel filed an amended complaint, the court granted Defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss, dismissing the federal claims without prejudice to repleading and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims. After counsel withdrew, Karunakaran filed the second amended complaint without a lawyer. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Discrimination Claims

The court held that Karunakaran did not plead facts supporting even the required minimal inference that Defendants’ actions were motivated by race, national origin, or age. Her allegations that the denial of reappointment was discriminatory were conclusory. She also did not identify or adequately describe similarly situated employees who received better treatment, including the younger professor whom she alleged replaced her. The court ruled that her general assertion that all faculty members were comparators, and her allegation about another professor allowing students to leave class early, did not supply the necessary specific facts. It further held that she did not connect Defendants’ failure to address the student’s conduct to her race, national origin, or age. The federal discrimination claims were dismissed.

Retaliation Claims

The court held that Karunakaran did not plausibly allege that she engaged in protected activity. Protected activity for these retaliation claims must involve opposing discrimination prohibited by the relevant statute. The court found that her identified union and whistleblowing activities did not concern statutorily prohibited discrimination. Her questions and suggestions about workplace administration and student conduct were not complaints, protests, or objections about unlawful discrimination. The court also relied on its earlier ruling that her complaints about the student’s conduct did not constitute protected activity because they did not concern unlawful activity. The federal retaliation claim was dismissed.

State and City Claims

After dismissing all federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims. It dismissed those state and city claims as well.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and closed the case. The discussion separately states that the federal claims were dismissed and that the state and city claims were dismissed after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction; it does not separately specify a prejudice qualifier for those state and city claims.