Seale v. The Trustees Of Columbia University in the City of New York

Background

Victor Seale, who was employed by Columbia University’s Department of Public Safety, alleged that Columbia terminated him because of his race and age. Seale alleged that he was a Black man, was 53 years old when terminated, and had been promoted to supervising sergeant in 2016. The termination followed an incident involving an adult who was allegedly acting aggressively toward an unidentified child. Columbia’s interim executive director of public safety determined that Seale should be terminated because he had demonstrated a lack of understanding of his role and responsibilities.

Seale asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Columbia moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim.

Title VII claims

The court dismissed Seale’s Title VII claims. It held that Title VII does not cover employment discrimination based on age. As to race discrimination, the court explained that Seale had to allege facts plausibly showing both an adverse employment action and that race was a motivating factor in the decision.

Columbia did not dispute that termination was an adverse employment action. But the court found that Seale alleged no facts showing directly or indirectly that race played a role in Columbia’s decision. The complaint’s statements that the stated reasons were pretextual and that the termination was based on race and age were conclusory. The court also rejected Seale’s argument that discovery could help him find evidence of discrimination, because a complaint must adequately allege a claim before discovery begins.

Constitutional and Section 1983 claim

The court dismissed Seale’s claim under Section 1983, which provides a remedy for certain constitutional violations committed under state authority. The court stated that Columbia is not a state actor and that Columbia and its employees are private actors. Because constitutional claims under Section 1983 require state action, the claim could not proceed against Columbia.

Request to amend

Seale requested permission to amend his complaint to add allegations from a Columbia student-newspaper article concerning alleged misconduct in the Department of Public Safety. The court denied that request because Seale conceded that it was unknown whether the people or events discussed in the article had any role in his termination. He therefore did not show that the proposed amendment would fix the complaint’s deficiencies.

State and city claims

After addressing the federal claims, the court stated that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It dismissed Seale’s New York State and New York City claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Columbia’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Seale’s federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his state and city claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for Columbia and close the case.