Bloomberg v. The New York City Department of Education

Background

Jill Bloomberg, identified in the opinion as a high school principal at Park Slope Collegiate, sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and its chancellor, Carmen Farina. Bloomberg alleged that the DOE investigated her for allegedly violating a regulation governing DOE employees’ political activity, and that the investigation was retaliation for her complaint that the DOE was providing racially separated and unequal opportunities in school sports programs.

Her amended complaint asserted due-process and retaliation claims under the First Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York City Human Rights Law. In September 2019, the court dismissed the Title VI retaliation claim. In September 2021, the court denied Bloomberg leave to file a second amended complaint, concluding that the proposed complaint did not show a connection between the DOE’s federal funding and the sports programs involved.

Bloomberg moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, challenging only the decision concerning her Title VI retaliation claim. She argued that the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 barred the court from requiring a connection between federal assistance and a particular program. The defendants argued that reconsideration should be denied and that the proposed claim also failed because Bloomberg did not allege that the primary objective of the federal funding was to provide employment.

Reconsideration standard

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or facts that could change its decision. The court concluded that it had overlooked the effect of the Civil Rights Restoration Act when it required Bloomberg to plead program-specific federal funding.

Federal-funding allegation

The court held that the Civil Rights Restoration Act broadly defines a federally funded “program or activity” and prevents courts from requiring proof that federal funding was directed to the particular sports program at issue. The proposed second amended complaint alleged that the DOE received Title I funds, that Park Slope Collegiate received Title I funds, and that the students at the school were intended beneficiaries of those funds.

Based on those allegations, the court concluded that Bloomberg adequately alleged that the students who were allegedly subjected to discrimination were intended beneficiaries of a federally funded program. The court therefore granted Bloomberg’s motion for reconsideration.

Employment limitation under Title VI

The court then reconsidered whether Bloomberg should be allowed to amend her complaint. Title VI generally does not authorize claims concerning an employer’s employment practices unless a primary objective of the federal financial assistance is to provide employment. The court rejected the distinction, relied on in an earlier decision, between employment-related retaliation and other employment practices for purposes of this limitation.

The court reasoned that Bloomberg’s proposed claim concerned an employment practice: the DOE’s investigation of her as a DOE employee. She sought relief for harm to herself, including emotional distress and reputational harm, rather than relief for the students who allegedly experienced unequal sports opportunities. Because Bloomberg did not allege that the DOE’s federal funding was primarily intended to provide employment, the court held that her Title VI retaliation claim could not proceed.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion was: “Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration ... is granted, but leave to amend is denied.” The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state that either ruling was issued with or without prejudice.