Lovallo v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Jody A. Lovallo, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE), Principal Sara Medina, and Assistant Principals Marisa Sorbaro, Eileen Kurppe, and Allison Krenn. She alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and the Rehabilitation Act.

Lovallo alleged that after Medina became principal, older and more senior teachers were treated less favorably than younger teachers. She described negative observation ratings, repeated classroom reassignments, denial of preferred assignments, exclusion from certain work opportunities, additional paperwork and meetings, a plan of assistance, and a Teacher Improvement Plan. She also alleged that she complained to school administrators about violations involving her special-education students’ Individualized Education Plans and later filed an age-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New York State Division of Human Rights.

Defendants moved to partially dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. For purposes of that motion, the court accepted the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and interpreted Lovallo’s allegations liberally because she was unrepresented.

Individual Defendants

Lovallo conceded that the individual defendants could not be held personally liable under the ADEA or the Rehabilitation Act. The court therefore granted dismissal of all ADEA and Rehabilitation Act claims against those defendants.

The court held that the individual defendants could potentially be liable under the NYSHRL for their own discriminatory conduct or for aiding and abetting discriminatory conduct. Because Lovallo alleged that the individual defendants personally took part in the challenged actions, and because she also alleged NYSHRL claims against DOE, the court declined to dismiss the NYSHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against the individual defendants on that ground.

Defendants did not contest individual liability under the NYCHRL, and they did not move to dismiss Lovallo’s NYCHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against the individual defendants.

Notice of Claim

DOE argued that Lovallo’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against it were barred because she had not served a notice of claim required by New York Education Law § 3813(1). Lovallo conceded that she did not file a separate notice of claim and argued that her EEOC and state administrative charges satisfied the requirement.

The court explained that an administrative charge can sometimes substitute for a notice of claim if it gives the school district sufficiently specific information about the claims, is served on the proper governing body, and is timely. The court found that Lovallo alleged only generally that she had complained of age discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. She did not allege enough about the contents of those charges to show that they gave DOE notice of the precise claims in the lawsuit. The court therefore granted dismissal of all NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against DOE for failure to satisfy the notice-of-claim requirement.

Statute of Limitations

For Lovallo’s ADEA claims, the court held that allegations based on events before August 14, 2021—300 days before her June 10, 2022 administrative charge—were untimely when they concerned discrete acts such as negative evaluations, reassignments, burdensome tasks, and improvement plans. The court allowed earlier events to be considered as possible background evidence for otherwise timely claims.

The court treated the ADEA hostile-work-environment claim differently because such a claim can involve a series of related acts. It concluded that allegations from the 2021–2022 school year could reasonably be understood as related to the alleged hostile work environment, allowing the court to consider earlier related events under the continuing-violation doctrine.

For the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against the individual defendants, the court applied a three-year limitations period. It concluded that the alleged discrimination and retaliation were not time-barred because the filing of the EEOC charge could, under the approach followed by courts in that district, toll the limitations period for those state and city discrimination claims. The court separately held that the Rehabilitation Act claim based on Lovallo’s September 2019 complaint was untimely; later complaints made in November and December 2021 and March 2022 were timely.

Age Discrimination

The court rejected defendants’ argument that Lovallo had not alleged an adverse employment action. Although a negative evaluation or plan of assistance might not independently be enough, Lovallo alleged that the ratings made her ineligible for per-session work and a special-education recovery position, costing her opportunities for additional compensation. She also alleged a disproportionately heavy workload and repeated assignments to less desirable classrooms.

The court further held that Lovallo plausibly alleged that age was the “but-for” cause of these actions, meaning that the actions would not have occurred because of age. She alleged that older teachers received poor ratings, that a younger co-teacher received a better overall rating despite co-planning and co-teaching the same lessons, that younger teachers were not required to perform the same additional tasks, and that younger teachers with less seniority received preferred assignments.

The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss Lovallo’s ADEA discrimination claim against DOE and her NYSHRL discrimination claim against the individual defendants. The ruling was limited by the applicable time limits described above.

Hostile Work Environment

The court granted dismissal of Lovallo’s ADEA hostile-work-environment claim against DOE and her NYSHRL hostile-work-environment claim against the individual defendants. It found that the complaint did not allege conduct involving the severe or pervasive discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, insult, threats, or humiliation required for such a claim. The court noted that the alleged negative evaluations, reassignments, extra work, and related conduct did not meet that standard as pleaded.

Retaliation

For age-based retaliation under the ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, Lovallo relied in part on the timing of classroom reassignments, an improvement plan, and negative evaluations after her June 2022 administrative charge. The court found that these actions could qualify as adverse actions, but held that Lovallo did not plausibly allege causation because similar actions had begun well before she filed the charge. The court therefore granted dismissal of the ADEA retaliation claim against DOE and the NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims against the individual defendants.

The court also granted dismissal of Lovallo’s Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim against DOE. The court accepted that her complaints on behalf of special-education students were protected activity and that defendants knew about them. But the court found no adequate causal connection because the negative evaluations and other challenged conduct had already begun before those complaints, and the complaint did not connect the later actions to her student advocacy.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court granted dismissal of all ADEA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the individual defendants; all NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against DOE for failure to satisfy the notice-of-claim requirement; the ADEA and NYSHRL hostile-work-environment claims specified in the order; the ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL retaliation claims specified in the order; and the Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim. The court denied dismissal of Lovallo’s ADEA discrimination claim against DOE and NYSHRL discrimination claim against the individual defendants. The NYCHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against the individual defendants also remained because defendants had not moved to dismiss them.