Mackenzie v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Charles R. Mackenzie, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Education, Superintendent Ketler Louissaint, and Principal Greer Phillips. He alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He claimed that school administrators repeatedly extended his probationary employment, gave him negative evaluations, directed him to transfer, and ultimately ended his employment after treating younger teachers more favorably.

Mackenzie began working for the Department of Education as a special education teacher in 2007. He alleged that, at several schools, administrators made age-related comments, prepared unfavorable evaluations, encouraged him to transfer, and replaced him with younger teachers. At the P79/Dr. Edmund Horan School, where he worked beginning in fall 2019, he alleged that he initially received positive feedback but later received negative evaluations and disciplinary notices. He filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New York State Division of Human Rights on September 9, 2020. The Department informed him on October 26, 2020, that his probation would not be completed and that his employment would end on November 4, 2020.

Before filing this federal case, Mackenzie brought a state-court proceeding concerning his termination and other issues. The parties settled that proceeding in July 2021 for $15,593. The settlement released claims that had been or could have been brought in that proceeding, but expressly preserved “an age discrimination claim challenging his discontinuance.” Mackenzie then brought this federal action alleging age discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Individual ADEA Liability and Proposed Equal-Protection Claim

The court dismissed Mackenzie’s ADEA claims against Louissaint and Phillips because the ADEA does not impose individual liability. Mackenzie also argued that the same conduct supported an equal-protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that can allow claims against state or local officials for constitutional violations. The court treated that argument as a request to amend the complaint.

The court declined to decide the unresolved legal questions about whether and under what standard an age-based equal-protection claim under § 1983 may proceed. Because courts have found such claims potentially viable and because Mackenzie had plausibly pleaded an ADEA claim, the court held that amendment would not clearly be futile. It therefore granted Mackenzie permission to add a § 1983 equal-protection claim against the defendants.

Timeliness

The court held that the ADEA’s 300-day filing period applied. Mackenzie filed his administrative complaints on September 9, 2020, so he could not seek relief for alleged discriminatory acts occurring before November 14, 2019. The court rejected application of the continuing-violation doctrine because the complaint described separate acts at four schools involving at least seven people, including negative evaluations, denial of preferred assignments, and termination. The court noted that those are generally treated as separate, completed acts rather than one continuing violation.

For the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against the Department of Education and Louissaint, the defendants argued that Mackenzie’s December 10, 2020 notice of claim was too late for claims based on events before September 11, 2020. Mackenzie argued that his September 9, 2020 administrative filings provided sufficient notice. The court did not resolve that alternative notice argument because the complaint identified no specific discriminatory acts between June 9 and September 11, 2020. The court also did not address additional state-law limitations arguments because resolving them would not change the scope of the claims that survived.

Settlement Release

The court interpreted the settlement’s exception preserving “an age discrimination claim challenging his discontinuance” as unambiguous and limited. It preserved only a claim that Mackenzie’s probationary employment was discontinued because of his age. It did not preserve separate retaliation or hostile-work-environment theories. The court therefore held that Mackenzie had released those other claims and any other claims covered by the settlement.

Plausibility of the Remaining Age-Discrimination Claims

The court held that Mackenzie plausibly alleged age-discrimination claims concerning the 2020 discontinuance of his probationary status and termination. For the ADEA and NYSHRL claims, the court considered whether he alleged that he was over 40, qualified for his position, suffered an adverse employment action, and experienced circumstances suggesting age discrimination. The court found those allegations sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage, although it described them as barely sufficient and somewhat conclusory. The court also found the allegations sufficient under the more liberal NYCHRL standard.

The court relied on Mackenzie’s allegations that administrators shifted from favorable to unfavorable evaluations before his termination, that younger and less experienced employees received better treatment, and that other older teachers experienced similar mistreatment. The court did not decide whether the Department had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating him, such as poor performance reviews, because that issue was not appropriate to resolve on a motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court’s order granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion. The court dismissed Mackenzie’s ADEA claims against Louissaint and Phillips for lack of individual liability. It denied the motion as to Mackenzie’s ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims against the Department of Education concerning the alleged age-related discontinuance and termination of his employment. It also denied the motion as to his NYSHRL and NYCHRL age-discrimination claims against Louissaint and Phillips concerning that discontinuance and termination. The motion was granted in all other respects, including as to claims barred by the settlement or applicable time limits. The court granted permission to amend the complaint to add a § 1983 age-based equal-protection claim and required the amended complaint within 30 days. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint in its entirety.