Dikambi v. City University of New York

Background

Judith Sandrine Dikambi brought employment-related claims against the City University of New York (CUNY) and Dr. Carlton J. Adams. She alleged gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and state law.

In an earlier order, the court allowed two hostile-work-environment claims to proceed: Dikambi’s Title VII claim against CUNY under a theory that CUNY could be legally responsible for Adams’s conduct, and her hostile-work-environment claim against Adams under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court had found that the claim against CUNY was timely under the continuing-violation doctrine because Adams’s delivery of Dikambi’s thesis paper to her office on February 8, 2018, occurred within the relevant limitations period and was sufficiently related to earlier alleged harassment.

CUNY previously sought reconsideration of that ruling, arguing that Adams was no longer Dikambi’s direct supervisor on February 8, 2018, and that there was no no-contact order in effect when he delivered the paper. The court denied reconsideration on November 24, 2021, concluding that the alleged February 8 conduct could still be related to the earlier alleged harassment even without a no-contact order.

The Motions to Dismiss

CUNY again argued that the February 8 incident could not connect the earlier conduct to the limitations period because no no-contact order existed at that time. It also argued that, because Adams was allegedly a coworker on that date, CUNY could not be liable unless CUNY had failed to provide a reasonable way to complain or knew about the harassment and did nothing.

The court treated these arguments as an attempt to relitigate issues already resolved in the reconsideration order. It declined to change its prior conclusion that the February 8 conduct was sufficiently related to the earlier alleged harassment to support a continuing violation. The court also maintained its prior conclusion that Dikambi had adequately stated a Title VII claim against CUNY.

Adams argued that CUNY’s internal investigation had found several allegations unsubstantiated and that Dikambi should be barred from relitigating those findings. The court rejected this collateral-estoppel argument. It explained that collateral estoppel can prevent relitigation only when the identical issue was actually litigated and decided in a prior proceeding. CUNY’s investigation concerned whether nine specific allegations were substantiated, while Dikambi’s lawsuit involved a broader, holistic assessment of alleged incidents, including incidents not considered in the investigation. The court also found insufficient information showing that CUNY’s investigation was a court-like proceeding, noting the absence of evidence of a hearing, cross-examination, discovery, or counsel for Dikambi.

Adams further argued that Dikambi’s allegations were vague and that she had not alleged that she was treated less favorably than other employees because of a protected characteristic. The court rejected both arguments because the allegations were the same as those the court had previously found sufficient, including allegations of unwanted sexual touching and racially derogatory comments.

Ruling

The court denied CUNY’s motion to dismiss and denied Adams’s motion to dismiss. The two remaining hostile-work-environment claims therefore remained in the case. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions listed at docket numbers 104 and 115.