Harriram v. City University of New York

Background

Priya Harriram, who was representing herself, sued the City University of New York (CUNY), Lehman College, Susan E. Ebersole, and Bridget Barbera. She asserted claims under Title VII, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged that the defendants retaliated against her for filing earlier lawsuits, including by refusing to hire her as a notetaker, denying her entry to a Lehman business school event, and barring her from taking in-person math courses at Lehman College.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They argued that Lehman College was not a proper party, that sovereign immunity barred some claims, and that Harriram had not plausibly alleged discrimination or retaliation.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed all claims against Lehman College because it is a senior college within CUNY and has no separate legal existence. The court also dismissed Harriram’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims against CUNY and against Barbera and Ebersole in their official capacities because sovereign immunity barred those claims. For the same reason, the court dismissed her Section 1981 claims against CUNY and against Barbera and Ebersole in their official capacities.

The court dismissed Harriram’s discrimination claims because she did not allege facts supporting even a minimal inference that her race or Trinidadian heritage motivated the decision not to hire her. The court also dismissed her related individual-capacity state and city discrimination claims against Barbera and Ebersole. To the extent she asserted a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, the court dismissed it because she did not allege that she was employed by CUNY during the relevant period. Title VII claims against Barbera or Ebersole were also dismissed because individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII.

The court dismissed the Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claims concerning the business school event. It also dismissed the corresponding claims concerning the math-course restriction. Those claims failed because Harriram did not allege the required employment relationship during the relevant period. The court dismissed her Article 78-related claims because she did not allege that she exhausted CUNY’s administrative appeals process or brought an Article 78 proceeding, and the court stated that it would decline jurisdiction over those claims even if she had exhausted her remedies.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court denied dismissal of Harriram’s failure-to-hire retaliation claims against CUNY and Barbera under Title VII, Title IX, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Harriram alleged that CUNY had begun processing her hiring paperwork and discussed a possible start date before someone from the legal office intervened and told her that she could not be hired. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to support an inference that retaliation for her earlier lawsuits was a cause of the decision.

The court also denied dismissal of Harriram’s Title IX retaliation claim against CUNY concerning the business school event. It found that excluding a student from a significant school event could plausibly be an adverse school-related action. Harriram alleged that CUNY approved her RSVP, then barred her from attending and circulated an alert stating that she was not allowed on campus. The court found that these allegations plausibly supported her claim that the stated explanation was a pretext for retaliation.

Finally, the court denied dismissal of Harriram’s Title IX retaliation claim against CUNY concerning the math courses. Harriram alleged that CUNY’s no-contact orders barred her from taking any in-person math courses at Lehman College because of litigation involving two math professors. She also alleged that CUNY rejected her request to take courses with different professors or at times when those professors were absent. The court found that the broad restriction could plausibly deter a reasonable student from reporting sex discrimination or sexual harassment.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The surviving claims are Harriram’s retaliation claims against CUNY and Barbera based on the failure-to-hire theory under Title VII, Title IX, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law; her Title IX retaliation claim against CUNY concerning the business school event; and her Title IX retaliation claim against CUNY concerning the restriction on in-person math courses. The action will proceed to discovery on those claims.