Solomon v. Fordham University

Background

Esther Solomon, an associate professor at Fordham University’s Gabelli School of Business, represented herself in the case. The opinion addressed two motions: Solomon’s request for reconsideration of the court’s June 4, 2021 order, and Fordham University’s motion to dismiss Solomon’s third amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The June 4 order had allowed Solomon to amend her complaint for the limited purpose of asserting that Fordham’s refusal to pay healthcare premiums during her unpaid leaves violated her tenure rights and applicable federal continuation-of-benefits regulations, and that the refusal was retaliatory. The court had found amendment of her other claims futile. Solomon nevertheless sought to reassert claims involving disparate treatment and unequal pay under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Solomon’s third amended complaint alleged that Fordham retaliated against her after her 2018 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint and lawsuits. She alleged that Fordham reported her as terminated, later reported a reduction in hours and status change, discontinued her health coverage and other benefits during unpaid leave, and assigned her a retaliatory teaching schedule. She argued that the loss of benefits violated Fordham’s tenure rules and federal regulations governing continuation of health coverage.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court denied Solomon’s motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an exceptional remedy generally available only when there has been a controlling change in law, new evidence, or a clear error that must be corrected to prevent serious unfairness.

Solomon relied on a Ninth Circuit decision concerning comparisons among university professors. The court held that the decision was not controlling in the Southern District of New York and was not persuasive because the professors in that case were equal in rank and seniority and were regularly compared for salary purposes. Solomon had not adequately alleged that her proposed comparators were similar to her in all important respects or that Fordham used them as salary comparators. The court also concluded that a Second Circuit decision cited by Solomon did not establish a change in controlling law and instead supported dismissal where allegations did not make discrimination plausible.

The court further held that Solomon’s new allegations did not cure the earlier deficiencies. Her pay-comparison chart did not identify the other professors’ titles, duties, functions, or ranks. The court found that the differences in rank, position, responsibilities, and graduate teaching duties between Solomon and two identified professors prevented a finding that they were similarly situated for purposes of her Equal Pay Act claims. The court also rejected Solomon’s argument that it had improperly resolved factual disputes in Fordham’s favor.

The court denied Solomon’s alternative request for partial final judgment under Rule 54(b). The court stated that request was moot because the opinion resolved all claims against Solomon and she could take an immediate appeal. The court nevertheless held that the requirements for partial final judgment were not satisfied because Solomon had not shown a reason to allow a piecemeal appeal before all related issues were considered together.

Motion to Dismiss

The court granted Fordham’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in its entirety. The court considered the complaint’s factual allegations true for purposes of the motion and drew reasonable inferences in Solomon’s favor, but it did not accept legal conclusions as true.

The court held that Solomon did not plausibly state retaliation claims under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act based on the discontinuation of benefits during her Spring and Fall 2020 unpaid leaves. The court accepted that Solomon engaged in protected activity and that Fordham knew about it. But the court concluded that Solomon had not plausibly alleged that Fordham’s decision to require her to obtain benefits through the federal continuation-of-coverage program was caused by her protected activity.

The court reasoned that Solomon had requested the unpaid leaves with the understanding that she would need to maintain benefits through that program. It also held that the unpaid leaves qualified as reductions in hours under the applicable regulation, and therefore could trigger continuation-of-coverage rights. The court found that Solomon’s tenure status had not changed, even though it was initially reported to the benefits administrator as terminated and later corrected to a reduction in hours. The court also found that her allegations about Fordham’s customary practices did not identify a prior unpaid leave during which she had maintained benefits, apart from a Fall 2019 leave that Fordham described as an exception.

Because the federal claims were dismissed before trial, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Solomon’s state-law claims. The court also held that the other claims in the third amended complaint exceeded the limited permission to amend and had already been dismissed. Those claims included allegations of pay discrimination, constructive discharge, hostile work environment, and discriminatory treatment.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Solomon’s motion for reconsideration, denied her motion for partial final judgment, and granted Fordham’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in its entirety. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions and close the case.