Harriram v. Fera

Background

Priya Harriram, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Joseph Luis Fera, Lehman College, and the City University of New York (CUNY). She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, Title IX, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which address subject-matter jurisdiction and whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Harriram alleged that she applied three times in 2020 for a math adjunct lecturer position at Lehman College and was not hired, even though she believed she had better qualifications than four men who were hired. She also alleged that Fera subjected her to unwanted sexual conduct and retaliated against her. In allegations concerning October and November 2021, she asserted that CUNY disabled her access to a database, Public Safety harassed her when she entered campus, and she was terminated after making sexual-misconduct and Title IX complaints.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed Harriram’s Title VII failure-to-hire discrimination theory because she did not allege that the position remained open and that the employer continued seeking applicants with her qualifications. It dismissed her Title VII quid pro quo sexual-harassment theory because she did not provide facts plausibly connecting Fera’s alleged conduct to the decision not to hire her. The court also found that Fera’s alleged statements, his failure to respond to two emails, and comments by people who were not identified as decisionmakers did not support a plausible inference of discrimination. The Title VII discrimination claim was dismissed without prejudice.

The court dismissed the Title VII retaliation claim with prejudice because Harriram’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge alleged discrimination based on sex and national origin but did not allege retaliation. The court dismissed the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim without prejudice because Harriram did not adequately allege that she was employed at Lehman when some events occurred, did not provide sufficient timing or detail about Fera’s alleged conduct, and did not describe October and November 2021 conduct that was severe or pervasive or connected to a protected characteristic.

The court held that CUNY’s status as an arm of New York State meant that the Eleventh Amendment barred Harriram’s § 1981 claim against CUNY, and that § 1981 did not provide a separate private cause of action against state actors. That claim was dismissed with prejudice. Construing the § 1981 claim against Fera as an individual-capacity claim, the court found that Harriram had not adequately alleged intentional racial discrimination and dismissed it without prejudice. The court also stated that claims against Lehman College were dismissed because Lehman College had no separate legal existence from CUNY.

The court dismissed Harriram’s New York City Human Rights Law claim against CUNY and against Fera in his official capacity with prejudice because state immunity barred those claims. Construing the claims against Fera in his individual capacity, the court dismissed the discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation theories without prejudice. Harriram did not adequately allege discriminatory intent, did not connect Fera to the October and November 2021 workplace events, and did not plausibly allege that Fera knew about or participated in the alleged retaliatory actions.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that Harriram’s Title IX claim was time-barred. It nevertheless dismissed the claim without prejudice because, for the same reasons as the Title VII claim, Harriram did not plausibly allege sex-based discrimination. The court treated her allegations that Fera engaged in misconduct between 2013 and 2020 as sufficient at the pleading stage to establish timeliness, despite their lack of detail.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Title VII discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims, the § 1981 claim against Fera in his individual capacity, the New York City Human Rights Law claims against Fera in his individual capacity, and the Title IX claim were dismissed without prejudice. The § 1981 claim against CUNY, the New York City Human Rights Law claim against CUNY and Fera in his official capacity, and the Title VII retaliation claim were dismissed with prejudice. Harriram was given one more opportunity to amend within 30 days, except as to the claims dismissed with prejudice. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion.