Harriram v. Fera

Background

Priya Harriram sued Joseph L. Fera, Brian Wynne, Dawn Ewing-Morgan, Bridget Barbera, the City University of New York (CUNY), and Lehman College. She alleged violations of Title VII, Title IX, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She proceeded without a lawyer.

Harriram alleged that Fera engaged in sexual misconduct and later refused to hire her for a math-department position in 2020. She also alleged that Wynne made her uncomfortable during a 2017 interaction. Harriram further alleged that she reported sexual harassment in 2021, that Ewing-Morgan handled the investigation improperly, and that Fera caused her to lose her part-time position in November 2021.

The court had dismissed Harriram’s Second Amended Complaint in March 2023 but allowed her one more opportunity to amend some claims. Harriram filed her Third Amended Complaint on April 26, 2023. Defendants moved to dismiss it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim for relief.

2021 Termination Claims

The court dismissed all claims arising from Harriram’s 2021 termination under res judicata, a rule that generally prevents a party from relitigating claims arising from the same facts after a prior final judgment. The court relied on its ruling in a prior related proceeding, which had concluded that Harriram’s claims concerning the termination were barred because she had already litigated and lost a substantially similar matter in state court.

The court also dismissed any claims against Ewing-Morgan outside the termination context because Harriram did not plead facts that plausibly stated a claim. Claims against Barbera were dismissed because the complaint did not mention her or allege facts connecting her to misconduct. Claims against Lehman College were dismissed because the court had previously determined that Lehman College has no separate legal existence from CUNY, and Harriram offered no new support for reviving those claims.

2020 Employment-Application Claims

The court again dismissed Harriram’s Title VII retaliation claim against CUNY because she had not shown that the earlier determination requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies should be revisited.

The court dismissed the Title VII discrimination claims. Harriram did not identify facts supporting an inference of race or national-origin discrimination in the Third Amended Complaint. Her sex-discrimination failure-to-hire claim also failed because she did not allege that the position remained open after she was rejected or that the employer continued seeking applicants with her qualifications.

The court dismissed the quid pro quo sexual-harassment theory because Harriram did not plausibly allege a causal connection between the alleged sexual conduct in 2013 and 2016 and the 2020 refusal to hire her. The court emphasized that more than four years passed between the last alleged interaction with Fera and the employment decision, without allegations of intervening interactions.

The court dismissed the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim against CUNY. Although Harriram alleged that she was employed part-time by CUNY during the relevant period, she did not adequately establish a basis for holding CUNY responsible for Fera’s alleged conduct. The court noted that she alleged CUNY provided a reporting process, investigated her allegations, issued no-contact orders, and took other steps to separate her from Fera.

The court dismissed Harriram’s New York City and New York State human-rights claims against CUNY because of sovereign immunity. It dismissed her claims against Fera in his official capacity on the same basis. Sovereign immunity did not protect Fera from individual-capacity claims, but the court dismissed those claims because Harriram did not plausibly plead retaliation, discrimination, or a hostile work environment under the applicable statutes.

2017 Allegations Against Wynne

The court dismissed Harriram’s Title VII claims against Wynne for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Her earlier administrative discrimination charge did not mention Wynne, she did not allege filing another charge concerning him, and the claims were not reasonably related to the earlier charge.

The court dismissed the Title IX claim against Wynne as untimely. Harriram alleged that the conduct occurred in 2017 and did not allege harassment after that year. Even using the latest possible date in 2017 and accounting for the tolling period discussed by the court, the claim expired before Harriram raised the allegations against Wynne in this action.

The court also dismissed the New York City and New York State human-rights claims against Wynne in his personal capacity as untimely. The court rejected Harriram’s argument that a continuing-violation rule applied because she alleged a discrete incident and no qualifying conduct by Wynne within the limitations period.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full. The court stated that Harriram had received three opportunities to amend her pleadings and had failed to correct the identified deficiencies. The court therefore dismissed her claims with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case.