Sircar v. City University of New York

Background

The plaintiff, a former City College professor, brought claims against The City University of New York (CUNY) and Vincent Boudreau, identified in the opinion as the president of City College. The complaint asserted retaliation and age, race, and national-origin discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants denied her reappointment and tenure, including by failing to prioritize construction of her laboratory while two younger, non-Asian professors received tenure. She also alleged that the defendants retaliated against her by canceling a course she was scheduled to teach after she challenged the alleged discrimination.

Before filing the federal case, the plaintiff filed a union grievance under the applicable collective bargaining agreement challenging the denial of reappointment with tenure. After the decision was upheld in two grievance proceedings, she demanded arbitration in January 2023. The arbitration began before the American Arbitration Association in June 2023, and testimony was expected to conclude on October 23, 2023.

Request for a stay

The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, the federal case until the arbitration concluded. They argued that the arbitration and the complaint involved overlapping issues and that the arbitration’s result could affect the federal claims. The plaintiff consented to the requested stay. The defendants also asked the court to adjourn the November 22, 2023 pretrial conference and require the parties to report the arbitration’s outcome.

The court’s stay analysis focused on avoiding piecemeal litigation, duplicative discovery, and inconsistent results. The opinion explained that a favorable arbitration result for the plaintiff could lead to reappointment with tenure and could affect whether she had suffered the adverse employment action required for her claims. A favorable result for CUNY could provide evidence that CUNY had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying tenure.

The court also found that CUNY had not interfered with the arbitration, that the arbitration was expected to conclude within a reasonable time, and that the delay would not cause the plaintiff undue hardship. The opinion noted that the plaintiff consented to the stay and that the parties otherwise could be prejudiced by duplicative litigation.

Ruling

The court granted the application. It adjourned the November 22, 2023 conference without setting a new date and stayed the case pending the outcome of the parties’ arbitration. The parties were directed to submit a joint letter on or before the fourteenth day after the arbitrator issued a decision. At that point, the court would consider the defendants’ request to extend their deadline to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 12.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide the underlying discrimination or retaliation claims in this order.