Blumstein-Torrella v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Karyn Blumstein-Torrella sued the New York City Department of Education and Barbara Bellafatto, identified in the caption as the principal of P.S. 36. She alleged claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Blumstein-Torrella alleged that she had several medical conditions, was a practicing Roman Catholic, and was 47 years old. She claimed that Bellafatto issued discipline and lower evaluations connected to absences, including absences related to medical treatment, medical leave, and religious observance. She also alleged that Bellafatto questioned her religious practices, criticized the cost of her salary and absences, urged her to resign or take disability-related leave, and participated in disciplinary actions after Blumstein-Torrella filed discrimination complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and filed this federal action.

The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to plausibly support a legal claim. At this stage, the court treated well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Blumstein-Torrella’s favor.

Claims the Court Dismissed

The court deemed abandoned and dismissed the claims that Blumstein-Torrella did not defend in her opposition brief. These included hostile-work-environment claims based on religion under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law; hostile-work-environment claims based on disability under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law; hostile-work-environment claims based on age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law; and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims against the Department of Education because Blumstein-Torrella did not adequately plead compliance with New York Education Law § 3813’s notice-of-claim requirement. The opinion explained that merely alleging complaints to the state human-rights agency and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not show that the required notice was served on the proper governing body within the required time.

The court held that federal claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act based on conduct before July 27, 2017 were barred by the 300-day limitations period. The court said those events could still be considered as background evidence when evaluating timely discrimination claims.

The court dismissed the Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim. Blumstein-Torrella alleged that she received intermittent leave and that Bellafatto later said the leave should never have been approved, but she did not allege that she had worked the required 1,250 hours during the relevant period. The court treated that eligibility allegation as necessary to the claim. The court also declined to consider additional interference theories raised for the first time in Blumstein-Torrella’s opposition brief rather than in the amended complaint.

The court dismissed the religious-discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It found that the allegations about religious leave, questions about Blumstein-Torrella’s beliefs, and discipline connected to absences did not plausibly show that the defendants acted because of her religion. The court also dismissed the age-discrimination claims because, apart from alleging that Blumstein-Torrella was 47, the amended complaint did not connect the alleged salary-related comments or other conduct to her age.

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act hostile-work-environment claim. The amended complaint listed incidents such as the lack of a bathroom key, assignments involving walking and stairs, disciplinary letters, and teaching outside her licensed area, but it did not allege facts connecting those incidents to her disabilities.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court held that the amended complaint adequately stated disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The allegations that medical conditions caused work absences, that Bellafatto criticized the resulting expense and doubted that Blumstein-Torrella’s health would improve, and that disciplinary proceedings sought her termination were enough at the pleading stage to support an inference of disability-based discrimination.

The court also held that Blumstein-Torrella adequately stated retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Title VII. She alleged that she filed discrimination complaints and this lawsuit, followed by disciplinary charges, a fine, additional disciplinary letters, and proceedings seeking termination. The court found that the timing and alleged escalation of discipline plausibly supported a connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliation.

The defendants had not moved to dismiss Blumstein-Torrella’s Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim, so the opinion did not decide that claim.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status letter within 14 days stating whether Blumstein-Torrella sought permission to file another amended complaint.