Spencer v. NYC Department of Education

Background

Jamala K. Spencer, who is Black, worked for the NYC Department of Education beginning in January 2008 and later became a preschool special-education coordinator. She alleged that Superintendent Donalda Chumney treated her in a demeaning and belittling way during several meetings in January 2020, called her a liar, accused her of misconduct, and treated her differently from a white colleague. Spencer also alleged that Chumney interfered with job interviews and denied her special-education training after Spencer filed a race- and color-discrimination complaint with the Department’s Office of Equal Opportunity.

Spencer further alleged that she was investigated for employee misconduct, that colleagues treated her differently after learning about the investigation, and that Site Coordinator Lisa Galeano yelled at her on three occasions. She took medical leave in August 2022. Spencer filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 7, 2022, received a notice of the right to sue, and filed this case on December 20, 2022.

Claims and Motions

Spencer’s First Amended Complaint asserted a hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Department moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Spencer cross-moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Title VII Timeliness

The court held that Spencer’s Title VII charge had to cover conduct occurring on or after June 11, 2021, 300 days before she filed the charge. The court explained that a hostile-work-environment claim can sometimes include earlier conduct when a timely act is part of the same continuing pattern. But it found that the later notice of the employee-misconduct investigation and Galeano’s yelling were not sufficiently related to Chumney’s earlier conduct. The later incidents involved different people, and Spencer did not adequately connect them to the earlier alleged conduct.

The court therefore concluded that Spencer’s pre-June 11, 2021 allegations could not be considered as part of her Title VII hostile-work-environment claim.

Title VII Merits

The court also ruled that the timely allegations did not plausibly show that the alleged conduct occurred because of Spencer’s race or color. The court found no alleged facts connecting the investigation or Galeano’s yelling to those protected characteristics. Even if the court considered all of Spencer’s allegations, it concluded that the alleged comments, job-interview interference, denial of training, investigation, and three incidents of yelling were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive work environment under Title VII.

The court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss Spencer’s Title VII claim.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in light of the different standards applicable to Spencer’s New York State and New York City claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Leave to Amend

The court denied Spencer leave to file a Second Amended Complaint because the proposed amendments would be futile. Spencer sought to add a hostile-work-environment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court held that Section 1981 does not provide a separate private right of action against state actors. The court also stated that, even if the proposed claim were treated as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Spencer had not alleged that the challenged conduct resulted from a municipal policy or custom.

The proposed additional facts about the employee-misconduct investigation did not connect that investigation to the alleged hostile work environment or add post-June 11, 2021 conduct that was sufficiently severe or pervasive. The court therefore denied Spencer’s motion to amend.

Disposition

The court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss. Spencer’s Title VII claim was dismissed with prejudice. Spencer’s New York State and New York City claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court denied Spencer’s motion for leave to amend and directed the clerk to close the case.