Everett v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Stephanie N. Everett, a Black woman and New York City public-school teacher, sued the New York City Department of Education, Angela Liso, Katina Yesnick, and Reinaldo Diaz-Lens. She alleged race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Everett alleged that she received negative evaluations and a disciplinary letter, was excluded or ignored at work, was kept on an extended probationary period, and was ultimately discontinued from employment. She claimed that Diaz-Lens told her in June 2022 that she would be discontinued because of low enrollment, although she alleged that the appropriate action was to excess her instead. She also alleged that she was retaliated against for filing a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights and for filing this lawsuit.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under the rule allowing dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. At that stage, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Everett’s favor, without deciding whether those allegations were ultimately true.

Title VII claims

The court dismissed all Title VII claims against Liso, Yesnick, and Diaz-Lens because individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII. The court also dismissed Everett’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim against the Department. Even considering the alleged conduct together, the court found that it was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to change the conditions of Everett’s employment. The court characterized the alleged conduct as occurring over more than four years and consisting largely of occasional rudeness, facially race-neutral comments, one negative review, one disciplinary letter, and the termination.

The court denied the motion to dismiss Everett’s Title VII race-discrimination claim against the Department. It found that her discontinuance and the extension of her probationary period could qualify as adverse employment actions and that her allegations, considered collectively, plausibly supported an inference that racial bias contributed to those actions. The court also denied the motion as to her Title VII retaliation claim against the Department. Although the timing between her lawsuit and discontinuance was lengthy, the court found it plausible at the pleading stage that the discontinuance occurred at an appropriate employment decision point and that the stated reason could have been pretextual.

New York State and New York City claims

The court dismissed all NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against the Department because Everett had not served a required notice of claim. The court also dismissed the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against Liso and Yesnick. It found that Everett had not sufficiently alleged that either individual acted because of her race or took retaliatory action after her protected activity.

The court dismissed Diaz-Lens’s NYSHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims. It explained that Diaz-Lens could not be directly liable as an employee under the NYSHRL and that Everett had not adequately pleaded that he aided or encouraged another person’s unlawful conduct. The court denied the motion as to Diaz-Lens’s NYCHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims, because the allegations sufficient to meet the Title VII discrimination standard also met the more lenient NYCHRL standard.

The court denied the motion as to Everett’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims against Diaz-Lens. Because Everett plausibly alleged retaliation under Title VII against the Department based on Diaz-Lens’s conduct, the court concluded that the allegations also satisfied the more permissive state and city retaliation standards.

Disposition and amendment

Judge Cronan granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed Everett’s Title VII claims against the individual defendants; her Title VII hostile-work-environment claim against the Department; all NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against the Department, Yesnick, and Liso; and her NYSHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against Diaz-Lens.

The court denied the motion as to Everett’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against the Department, her NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims against Diaz-Lens, and her NYCHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against Diaz-Lens. Each dismissal was without prejudice to Everett amending her complaint. The court allowed one final amendment within thirty days. If Everett did not file a timely third amended complaint, the court stated that the dismissed claims would be dismissed with prejudice and that Liso and Yesnick would be terminated from the action.