Baptiste v. The City University of New York

Background

Michele A. Baptiste, a Black woman and former administrator at the City College of New York, sued the City University of New York (CUNY) and CUNY president Vincent Boudreau. She alleged race discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, Baptiste investigated disability-related and racial-discrimination complaints involving other CUNY employees. She alleged that Boudreau retaliated against her after she helped reinstate a professor’s tenure benefits, concluded that Boudreau had participated in retaliation against that professor, and objected to Boudreau’s threats against another employee who had filed a discrimination charge and requested a reasonable accommodation. Baptiste alleged that Boudreau terminated her the day after she recommended granting the accommodation request. The complaint also alleged that she was replaced by white women.

Legal Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and viewed reasonable inferences in Baptiste’s favor. For the employment-discrimination claims, the court said Baptiste needed to allege facts supporting at least a minimal inference that discrimination motivated the challenged action.

Discrimination Claims

The court dismissed Baptiste’s race-discrimination claims under Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It concluded that the complaint did not support even a minimal inference of racial discrimination. Although Baptiste alleged that white women replaced her, the court found that the complaint’s broader theory was that Boudreau acted vindictively because of her investigations and objections, rather than because of racial hostility. The allegations concerning the dismantling of a diversity committee, changes to her office, and Boudreau’s anger at another employee’s racial-discrimination complaint did not establish the required discriminatory motive.

The court granted the motion as to Baptiste’s discrimination claims in their entirety.

Retaliation Claims

The court dismissed Baptiste’s Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim against Boudreau in his individual capacity because officials cannot be sued in their individual capacities under that statute. The court did not dismiss the claim against Boudreau in his official capacity because the defendants had waived that argument. The court also held that Baptiste plausibly alleged retaliation against CUNY and Boudreau in his official capacity: the defendants did not dispute that she engaged in protected activity, that they knew about it, or that her termination was an adverse employment action, and the termination occurred one day after she advocated for the other employee.

The court allowed Baptiste’s Section 1981 retaliation claim against Boudreau to proceed. The defendants argued that Section 1981 does not cover disability-based retaliation. The court agreed with that general proposition but found it beside the point because Baptiste alleged that she opposed retaliation against an employee who had complained about racial discrimination. The court concluded that this allegation plausibly described race-based retaliation.

The court dismissed Baptiste’s Equal Protection Clause retaliation claim against Boudreau. It held that disability-based retaliation cannot be pursued under Section 1983 through the Equal Protection Clause because protection from disability discrimination is provided by statute rather than directly by the Constitution.

The court dismissed Baptiste’s retaliation claim under the New York State Human Rights Law against Boudreau. Under that law, the court explained, an individual may be liable as someone who helps another person violate the law, but cannot help violate the law against himself. Because Baptiste alleged that Boudreau himself was the principal retaliator, he could not be liable on that theory. The court allowed the New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claim against Boudreau to proceed because that law permits individual liability for a person’s own retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The following claims were dismissed: all discrimination claims; Baptiste’s Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim against Boudreau in his individual capacity; her Equal Protection Clause retaliation claim; and her New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claim. The Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim against CUNY and Boudreau in his official capacity, the Section 1981 retaliation claim, and the New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claim against Boudreau survived.

The court declined to grant permission to amend the dismissed claims because Baptiste had not requested permission, had not identified additional facts that would cure the defects, and had previously been warned that she would not receive another opportunity to amend. The defendants were directed to answer the remaining claims within two weeks. Judge Jesse M. Furman also reinstated and adjourned the initial pretrial conference to August 2, 2023.