Everett v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Stephanie N. Everett, a New York City public school teacher proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Education, Assistant Principal Katina Yesnick, and teacher Angela Liso. She alleged race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Her allegations included unfavorable observations and ratings, a disciplinary letter, exclusion from a meeting, being ignored at a school event, and transfer from P.S./M.S. 31 to P.S. 63. She also alleged that the Department of Education retaliated against her for filing a discrimination complaint by extending her tenure at P.S. 63.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Administrative exhaustion and timeliness

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Everett’s Title VII retaliation claim was barred because she had not included it in her New York State Division of Human Rights complaint. Because the alleged retaliation was based on filing that administrative complaint, the court held that the retaliation claim fell within an exception for claims reasonably related to the administrative charge. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss that claim on exhaustion grounds and considered its merits.

The court calculated that Title VII claims based on conduct occurring before March 12, 2020 were generally outside the 300-day period for filing an administrative charge. It treated most of Everett’s alleged discriminatory acts—including negative performance reviews, social slights, and the transfer—as separate acts rather than part of a continuing violation. The court therefore did not consider those allegations as timely discrimination claims, although it could consider them as background evidence. The court found that three alleged acts occurred within the relevant period: exclusion from a late-May 2020 meeting, failure to acknowledge Everett at a June 1, 2020 meeting, and her August 2020 transfer to P.S. 63. The court held that her hostile-work-environment claim was timely because at least one alleged act occurred within the filing period.

Title VII claims against individual defendants

The court dismissed Everett’s Title VII claims against Yesnick and Liso because individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII.

Disparate-treatment discrimination

The court dismissed Everett’s Title VII claim against the Department of Education for disparate treatment. It held that the timely allegations did not plausibly show an adverse employment action, meaning a materially harmful change in the terms of employment. Exclusion from a meeting and failure to acknowledge Everett were not sufficiently harmful. The transfer from P.S./M.S. 31 to P.S. 63 was alleged to be a lateral transfer, and Everett did not allege that it involved a demotion, reduced pay, reduced benefits, significantly different responsibilities, or another material career setback.

Hostile work environment

The court dismissed the hostile-work-environment claim. It held that the alleged conduct—including being ignored at two meetings, being told that teaching might not be the right profession for her, and alleged insults or mocking by Liso—consisted of distinct incidents that were not sufficiently severe, pervasive, continuous, or concerted to create a workplace permeated by discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult.

Retaliation

The court dismissed the Title VII retaliation claim. Everett relied on the timing between her January 6, 2021 administrative complaint and the decision approximately six months later to keep her at P.S. 63. The court held that this gap, without additional supporting facts, was too long to plausibly show causation. The court also noted that Everett alleged that her principal attributed the decision to her earlier ratings at P.S./M.S. 31, which undermined the claim that the decision was caused by retaliation.

State and city claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, over Everett’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. The court dismissed those claims at that stage as well.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to filing an amended complaint. The court granted Everett leave to replead any claims, including her state and city claims, by July 29, 2022. An amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it. If Everett did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to close the case.