Dass v. The City University of New York

Background

Krishna Dass sued the City University of New York and other defendants. She alleges that she was the only female athletic director among the athletic directors at CUNY’s community colleges, that male athletic directors were placed on a higher-paying pay scale, and that her requests to be moved to that pay scale were ignored, delayed, and denied. She alleges that she was discriminated against and underpaid until her constructive termination in January 2019.

During discovery, Shirley Shevach, who had been the human-resources director at the college where Dass worked, testified that she had compared Dass’s salary with the salaries of other CUNY athletic directors and managers and had reviewed Dass’s prior salary history. Dass requested all documents concerning that salary analysis. The defendants objected, arguing that the request was vague, overbroad, burdensome, disproportionate, and duplicative of information already produced or publicly available.

Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order

On May 10, 2022, Magistrate Judge Ona T. W. Wang denied 35 of 45 disputed document requests, including the request for documents concerning Shevach’s analysis. Dass objected to the denial of that one request. She argued that the documents were important for determining whether the employees considered in the analysis were legally comparable employees for her discrimination claim. She also asked to question Shevach again after receiving the requested information.

Legal Standard

A district judge may overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter only if it is clearly erroneous, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. Discovery generally includes relevant, nonprivileged information, but it must be proportional to the needs of the case. Courts must limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or that can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized that comparator discovery—information about other employees used to evaluate a discrimination claim—should generally be allowed so a plaintiff can try to establish discrimination. But the court assumed, without deciding, that the requested information was relevant and material. It held that Dass had not shown that the requested materials were not duplicative or cumulative of information she had already received or could obtain publicly.

The court noted that the defendants had produced personnel files for CUNY community-college student athletic directors and managers employed during Dass’s tenure. The defendants also represented that salary information was publicly available, and Dass did not dispute that representation. The court distinguished cases allowing discovery of employment information about potential comparators because Dass sought the defendant’s analysis or internal thinking about which employees qualified as comparators, rather than additional employment information about those employees.

The court also stated that it was not deciding whether the employees considered by Shevach were legally sufficient comparators. It further noted that Shevach had not specified the purpose of her analysis or stated her position about potential comparators, and that Dass had not asked Shevach about those subjects during the original deposition.

Ruling

Judge Vernon S. Broderick held that the information’s availability through other discovery and public sources supported Magistrate Judge Wang’s conclusion that the request was disproportionate. He deferred to Magistrate Judge Wang’s determination because she had overseen discovery and other pretrial matters for about two years.

The court overruled Dass’s objection. Magistrate Judge Wang’s May 10, 2022 order remained in full effect. Because the court affirmed the denial of the document request and Dass had already had an opportunity to question Shevach, the court also denied Dass’s request to depose Shevach again.