Verne v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

Marie Verne, a former Spanish teacher, sued the New York City Department of Education, Principal Melanie Katz, and Assistant Principal Elizabeth Messmann. She alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Her allegations concerned age, religion, and disability discrimination; hostile work environments; failure to accommodate her religious observance and medical conditions; and retaliation for protected activity.

Verne alleged that she had previously received an early Friday schedule to observe her Sabbath and to attend medical appointments. She claimed that the school later denied her requests for an early schedule, issued disciplinary letters, brought disciplinary charges under New York Education Law § 3020-a, reassigned her from teaching to other locations, failed to process medical accommodation and leave requests, and applied a vaccine mandate that she could not satisfy because of her medical issues. She submitted a retirement application effective November 5, 2021.

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On such a motion, the court assumed the complaint’s factual allegations were true and asked whether they plausibly supported legal relief.

Preliminary Rulings

The court denied Defendants’ request to dismiss the claims against Katz and Messmann for allegedly late service. Although service was late, the defendants had been served, had notice of the litigation, and had retained counsel who appeared for them.

The court dismissed Verne’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims against the Department of Education because she did not allege that she had served the required notice of claim. The court also ruled that discrete federal discrimination and retaliation acts occurring before August 2, 2019, were outside the applicable 300-day administrative filing period. Earlier conduct could still be considered as background evidence and in connection with hostile-work-environment claims.

Federal Discrimination Claims

The court denied dismissal of Verne’s ADEA age-discrimination claim. It found that her allegations of a campaign against senior teachers, negative ratings, disciplinary actions, and § 3020-a charges plausibly supported an inference that the charges were motivated at least partly by age.

The court dismissed Verne’s Title VII religion-discrimination claim. Verne alleged that Jewish teachers received religious scheduling accommodations while her Sabbath-related request was denied, but she did not provide enough information to show that those teachers were similarly situated to her.

The court denied dismissal of Verne’s ADA disability-discrimination claim. Her allegations that the school repeatedly denied an early schedule needed for physical therapy and medical appointments, followed by disciplinary charges and reassignment after medical leave, plausibly supported an inference that disability was a motivating factor.

Hostile-Work-Environment Claims

The court denied dismissal of Verne’s ADEA hostile-work-environment claim. Her allegations included age-related insults, an involuntary medical examination, negative evaluations, disciplinary actions, and charges against senior teachers over approximately two years.

The court dismissed her Title VII religion-based hostile-work-environment claim because she had not sufficiently alleged that the challenged conduct was motivated by religion.

The court denied dismissal of her ADA hostile-work-environment claim. It found that the alleged repeated denials of medical accommodations and disciplinary actions that led to her reassignment were sufficiently connected to her disabilities at the pleading stage.

Retaliation Claims

The court dismissed all of Verne’s federal retaliation claims under the ADEA, Title VII, and ADA. Verne identified her administrative discrimination complaints as protected activity, but the court found that the alleged retaliatory acts either were not adequately dated or occurred too long afterward to support an inference of causation from timing alone. The court also dismissed her state and city retaliation claims against Katz and Messmann for the same lack of a sufficient causal connection and because the complaint did not adequately identify personal retaliatory conduct by those defendants.

Failure-to-Accommodate Claims

The court declined to dismiss Verne’s Title VII claim alleging failure to accommodate her religion. Defendants had not properly raised their arguments against that claim in their opening motion papers, and the court stated that the claim would survive even if those arguments were considered.

The court denied dismissal of Verne’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. It found that she plausibly alleged notice of her disability through doctors’ notes and meetings about her schedule and medical needs. The claim covered the denied early schedule and her later request to work from home. The court also noted that Defendants had not identified authority requiring notice of a medical need before the school year began.

State and City Claims

The court dismissed Verne’s NYSHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against Katz and Messmann because, under that statute, employees are not employers subject to liability for those claims, and Verne did not plead an aiding-and-abetting theory.

The court dismissed Verne’s NYCHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against Messmann because she did not sufficiently allege that Messmann personally treated her less favorably for a discriminatory reason. The court allowed those claims against Katz to proceed, finding that allegations that Katz called Verne senile, subjected her to an involuntary medical examination, and sent other older teachers for similar evaluations plausibly alleged age-based treatment under the broader city law.

As to the NYCHRL, the court dismissed all claims against the Department of Education and Messmann, and dismissed the claims against Katz only to the extent they alleged retaliation. The court had already dismissed the NYSHRL claims against the Department of Education because of the notice-of-claim defect and ultimately dismissed the Fourth Cause of Action in its entirety.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the ADEA retaliation claim; dismissed the Title VII claims for religion discrimination, religion-based hostile work environment, and retaliation, but denied dismissal of the Title VII religion-accommodation claim; dismissed the ADA retaliation claim but otherwise denied dismissal of the ADA claims; dismissed the NYSHRL cause of action in its entirety; and dismissed the NYCHRL cause of action in its entirety as to the Department of Education and Messmann and as to Katz only regarding retaliation. The court granted Verne leave to file another amended complaint if she could correct the identified pleading deficiencies.