Atherley v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Kimling Atherley, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and Colin Caldwell. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged age, race, and disability discrimination and retaliation.

Atherley alleged that the DOE reassigned her from Middle School 301 to DOE sites at 131 Livingston Street and 65 Court Street. She alleged that she had arthritis, had previously received reasonable accommodations, and was not accommodated at 65 Court Street. She also alleged that, after the pandemic, she and two other Black teachers were required to return to 65 Court Street while other teachers were allowed to return to 131 Livingston Street. She further alleged that a Caucasian teacher’s request for a transfer as a disability accommodation was granted while hers was denied. The complaint also described disciplinary charges, a one-day suspension, and exclusion from certain additional work opportunities.

The DOE and Caldwell moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Federal Claims Against Caldwell

The court dismissed with prejudice Atherley’s federal claims against Caldwell under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The court held that those statutes do not provide for individual liability against an employee.

State and Local Claims Against the DOE

The court dismissed without prejudice Atherley’s claims against the DOE under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law because she did not allege compliance with New York’s notice-of-claim requirement. The court explained that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge can sometimes satisfy that requirement, but the complaint did not allege that the charge was timely, identified the precise claims, or was served on the proper governing body.

The court also stated that claims based on conduct before January 28, 2022 could be time-barred because Atherley filed her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge on April 28, 2022. The court allowed her to amend to add facts concerning compliance with the notice-of-claim requirement.

Age-Discrimination Claims

The court dismissed Atherley’s age-discrimination claims with prejudice. The complaint stated that she had experienced age discrimination but alleged no supporting facts. The court found that a statement in her opposition brief connecting her worsening disability to increasing age was not connected to any alleged discriminatory conduct. The court concluded that amendment would be futile because the complaint contained no facts supporting age discrimination.

Race-Discrimination Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Atherley’s race-discrimination claims, but permitted amendment concerning whether her return to 65 Court Street was an adverse employment action and how it affected her employment conditions. The court found that Atherley adequately identified potentially comparable non-Black teachers who were allegedly treated more favorably. However, she did not allege enough facts explaining why 65 Court Street was inferior or what effect the assignment had on her career or employment conditions.

The court also found that Atherley had sufficiently alleged Caldwell’s personal participation for purposes of her New York City Human Rights Law claim and her claim that Caldwell aided and abetted discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. The court nevertheless allowed her to amend the allegations supporting an adverse employment action or less favorable treatment.

Disability-Discrimination Claims

The court held that Atherley’s disability-discrimination claims were time-barred. It treated December 16, 2019, when she was first transferred to 65 Court Street and allegedly denied an accommodation, as the date the claims accrued. Her April 28, 2022 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge came 864 days later, beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act’s 300-day filing period. The court also held that her later accommodation requests did not restart that period.

The court further held that her disability-discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law were filed after the applicable three-year limitations period. Those disability-discrimination claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the court stated that they could not be repleaded.

Retaliation Claims

The court treated the complaint as asserting retaliation claims against the DOE under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and against Caldwell under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court held that allegations concerning retaliation in April 2019 were time-barred. The alleged retaliation consisted of disciplinary charges and reassignment after Atherley complained about race discrimination on behalf of another teacher. Her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge was filed more than 1,100 days later, beyond the applicable federal and state limitations periods.

The court found that three later alleged events fell within the relevant limitations periods: Atherley’s reassignment to 65 Court Street in September 2021, her one-day suspension on April 27, 2022, and disciplinary charges issued on May 5, 2022. The court found that her complaints about disability accommodations, her complaint alleging race and disability discrimination, and her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge were potentially protected activity under the relevant laws.

The court held that Atherley adequately pleaded a causal connection for the suspension and the May 5, 2022 disciplinary charges because those events occurred a little more than two months and about one week, respectively, after the alleged protected activities. Those retaliation claims were adequately pleaded. The court could not determine whether the September 2021 reassignment was causally connected to Atherley’s complaints because she did not provide the dates of those complaints, so it granted leave to amend that claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Atherley leave to file an amended complaint by May 1, 2024. She could add facts about the DOE’s notice-of-claim requirements, the employment impact of returning to 65 Court Street, and the timing connecting her complaints to that reassignment. She could not replead the age-discrimination claims, federal claims against Caldwell, or disability-discrimination claims because those claims had been dismissed with prejudice.

The court’s final order stated that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.