James v. Borough of Manhattan Community College City of University of New York

Background

Ayleen James, who identified as African American and was born in 1946, had served as an adjunct lecturer in the Borough of Manhattan Community College’s Speech, Communication, and Theatre Arts Department from Fall 2001 through Spring 2019. She alleged that a May 2019 letter stated she would not be reappointed under a three-year teaching contract. She filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 5, 2020, and received a right-to-sue letter after the agency dismissed her charge.

James’s original lawsuit asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. In an earlier order, the court dismissed several claims with prejudice, including the state and city human-rights claims, the Title VII sex-discrimination claim, claims concerning a 2018 appointment, and the retaliation and hostile-work-environment claims. The court dismissed without prejudice the Title VII race-discrimination and ADEA age-discrimination claims related to conduct after May 10, 2019 because James had not pleaded enough facts. It also found that her § 1981 claim, construed as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation.

James filed an amended complaint against the City University of New York. CUNY moved to dismiss and asked the court to deny reconsideration of the claims previously dismissed with prejudice.

Claims Previously Dismissed With Prejudice

The court treated the amended allegations concerning the previously dismissed claims as a request for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent serious unfairness.

The court denied reconsideration. James did not identify a change in controlling law, clear error, or serious unfairness. The court also found that her new allegations did not alter the earlier conclusions that the New York State and City human-rights claims were untimely, that she had not shown the required notice of claim, and that she had not exhausted administrative remedies for the sex-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims.

Title VII Race and ADEA Age Claims

The court had previously found these claims administratively exhausted and timely based on James’s earlier allegation that she received the right-to-sue letter on September 15, 2020. In the amended complaint, however, she alleged that she received it on September 12, 2020. She also acknowledged that the lawsuit was filed three days beyond the 90-day filing period.

The court held that the race and age claims were untimely. It found no basis for equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in extraordinary circumstances when the plaintiff acted diligently. James explained that she had sent materials to a legal clinic, that her contact there was unavailable, and that she waited for a response before filing. The court concluded that these facts were insufficient to justify equitable tolling. It expressly stated that it was not deciding the merits of the race and age discrimination claims.

Section 1981 and Section 1983 Claim

The court construed James’s § 1981 race-discrimination claim as a § 1983 claim because § 1983 provides the federal remedy for claims against a state governmental unit based on rights protected by § 1981.

For a municipal discrimination claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the challenged conduct resulted from an official policy, a widespread custom, a decision by a final policymaker, or a policymaker’s deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise. James alleged that department officials created a policy involving student-evaluation scores and three-year contracts, and that the policy was intended to prevent her reappointment.

The court found those allegations insufficient. It concluded that the documents James cited did not support her assertion that CUNY had adopted the alleged policy, and that the allegations did not show that the department chair had final policymaking authority for CUNY. James also did not allege facts showing a widespread custom or a failure to train or supervise. The court further found no adequate causal connection between the alleged policies and her claimed injury and no plausible allegation of discriminatory racial intent. Her comparisons to white and Latino adjunct faculty members did not establish that they were similarly situated in all material respects or that the alleged policy caused them to receive more favorable treatment.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted CUNY’s motion to dismiss and for denial of reconsideration. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and the case.