Bloomberg v. The New York City Department of Education
- Sarah Cave
- 1:17-cv-03136
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bloomberg v. The New York City Department of Education, Judge Gardephe ordered more briefing on whether the Civil Rights Restoration Act changes Title VI retaliation pleading requirements.
Jill Bloomberg and the New York City Department of Education and Carmen Farina, because the order required supplemental briefing about Bloomberg’s Title VI retaliation claim.
What happened
In Bloomberg v. The New York City Department of Education, Jill Bloomberg asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to let her amend her complaint to pursue a Title VI retaliation claim. She argued that the court had applied the wrong standard and had overlooked the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
The court said the parties had not adequately explained how that law affects the requirement to connect federal funding with the alleged discrimination. It ordered Bloomberg and the defendants to file supplemental briefs addressing that legal issue and several related cases.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe did not resolve the reconsideration motion in this order. Instead, he set deadlines for Bloomberg’s brief on January 4, 2023, and the defendants’ brief on January 11, 2023.
The detailed version
- Bloomberg v. The New York City Department of Education · No. 1:17-cv-03136
- Sarah Cave
- Dec. 20, 2022
Background
The court had previously denied Jill Bloomberg’s motion to amend her complaint. Bloomberg then moved for reconsideration as to her claim that she was retaliated against at work after complaining that her students’ rights under Title VI had been violated. Title VI is a federal civil-rights law concerning discrimination in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Bloomberg argued that the court had treated her claim as an employment-discrimination claim and had incorrectly required her to plead program-specific federal funding. She also argued that the court had overlooked the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which broadened Title VI’s definition of “program or activity.”
Court’s Action
The court stated that the parties had not adequately briefed how the Civil Rights Restoration Act affects the pleading standard for a Title VI retaliation claim based on workplace retaliation for reporting violations of other people’s Title VI rights. In particular, the court directed the parties to address whether the Act changes the requirement that a plaintiff allege a factual connection between the use of federal funds and the discriminatory practices at issue.
The court ordered supplemental briefing focused on that legal question rather than on the case’s factual background. Bloomberg’s brief was due January 4, 2023, and the defendants’ brief was due January 11, 2023. The order did not grant or deny the motion for reconsideration.
Legal Standard and Disposition
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary request for the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The person seeking it has the heavy burden of showing that the court overlooked controlling decisions that might reasonably have produced a different result. The court required Bloomberg to cite case law meeting that standard and identified several cases for the parties to discuss.
This was a procedural order directing additional briefing; it did not decide whether Bloomberg’s Title VI retaliation claim ultimately satisfies the pleading standard. The opinion is signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.