Rosen v. N.Y.C. Department of Education

Background

Jane B. Modell Rosen sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE), the principal of Public School 123 Mahalia Jackson, and four assistant principals. She asserted claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

In an earlier ruling, the court dismissed Rosen’s disability claims, several retaliation and constructive-discharge claims, claims against the individual defendants under the ADEA, and punitive-damages claims. The claims remaining for this motion were Rosen’s ADEA claims against the DOE based on an alleged hostile work environment and constructive discharge, and her NYSHRL and NYCHRL age-discrimination claims based on an alleged hostile work environment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence requires a trial or instead requires judgment as a matter of law.

Rosen was hired in 2015, when she was approximately sixty-eight years old, as the school’s individualized education program teacher. During the 2016–17 school year, school administrators criticized or disciplined her regarding several matters, including paperwork, special-education services, scheduling, professional conduct, interactions with coworkers, classroom assignments, and compliance duties. Rosen argued that these actions were part of a plan to create a hostile work environment, force her to leave, and replace her with a younger teacher. She retired in May 2017, and the younger teacher later became the school’s individualized education program teacher.

Court’s analysis of the age-discrimination claims

The court applied the three-step framework used for employment-discrimination claims. First, it relied on its earlier finding that Rosen had met the minimal initial showing required for a discrimination claim. Second, it found that the defendants had identified clear, specific, and supported business reasons for their actions: Rosen’s alleged failure to fulfill job duties, professional misconduct, repeated insubordination, and the reassignment of some responsibilities in response to her complaints that she was overwhelmed.

Third, the court held that Rosen did not produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that those explanations were false or that age was a determining factor. The court addressed Rosen’s allegations concerning her exclusion from a paid opportunity, changes to her schedule and duties, paperwork and scheduling requirements, criticism concerning compliance forms and special-education services, disciplinary actions, removal from the third floor after 4:00 p.m., a classroom assignment, her performance rating, and the transfer of some responsibilities to a younger teacher.

The court concluded that the record did not show that these actions were taken because of Rosen’s age. It noted, among other things, that the principal offered Rosen the position for the 2016–17 school year after revised DOE guidance was issued, that the younger teacher was qualified for the role, and that the later replacement of Rosen by a younger teacher was not by itself enough to establish age discrimination. The court also held that Rosen had not shown conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an age-based hostile work environment or working conditions deliberately made intolerable to force an involuntary resignation.

Disposition

The court granted summary judgment for the DOE on Rosen’s ADEA claim and for all defendants on Rosen’s NYSHRL claims. The court did not reach the merits of the NYCHRL claims because that law uses a different and more protective discrimination standard. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to decide related state or city claims. It dismissed the NYCHRL claims without prejudice to renewal in state court.

The clerk was directed to terminate the summary-judgment motion and close the case.