Harte v. Pace University

Background

Wendy Harte, an Assistant Adjunct English Professor proceeding without a lawyer, sued Pace University; its President, Marvin Krislov; Associate Professors Sarah Blackwood and Stephanie Hsu; Title IX Investigator Bernadette Baumann; and Assistant Director of Employee and Labor Relations Sia Bundor. Her Second Amended Complaint asserted seven causes of action: race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; retaliation under Section 1981; race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; retaliation under Title VII; race discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law; race discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law; and defamation per se under New York common law.

The allegations arose from Harte’s Spring 2021 Introduction to Critical Race and Ethnicity Studies class. Harte alleged that students engaged in disruptive and race-based bullying, and that she reported these problems to university personnel. She alleged that university personnel advised her to change her teaching approach, observed her classes, accused her of mistreating or suppressing students, and ultimately removed her from the class during the semester while paying her the remaining salary for that class. She also alleged that she later received a negative teaching evaluation and that her professor title was removed from the university’s online system.

Before suing, Harte filed a discrimination charge with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The charge described retaliation after she reported student harassment, removal from a course, and a negative performance evaluation, but it did not mention race-based discrimination or harassment. She later received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a legal claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and does not decide what evidence will ultimately prove the case.

Title VII claims

The court dismissed the Title VII claims against the individual defendants Krislov, Hsu, Baumann, and Bundor because individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII. The court therefore considered the remaining Title VII claims against Pace University.

The court dismissed Harte’s Title VII race-discrimination and harassment claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. A person generally must first present the claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before bringing it in federal court. Harte’s charge identified retaliation but did not mention race, racial harassment, or racial discrimination. The court rejected Harte’s argument that later emails to agency personnel cured the charge because the emails were sent after the charge, did not identify her membership in a protected class, and did not otherwise give adequate notice of the race-based claims.

The court held that Harte adequately exhausted her Title VII retaliation claim. It also held that removing her from teaching the course and giving her a negative teaching evaluation were sufficiently serious adverse employment actions to support a retaliation claim at the pleading stage. Harte alleged that these actions followed closely after she complained about the students’ conduct, which was enough to plead causation. However, the court found that her allegation concerning removal of her title was insufficiently pleaded because she did not state when that removal occurred.

Section 1981 claims

The court allowed Harte’s Section 1981 retaliation claim to proceed against Pace University, Blackwood, Hsu, and Baumann. It relied on its Title VII retaliation analysis and found that Harte adequately alleged retaliation against those defendants. The claim could not proceed against Krislov or Bundor because Harte did not adequately allege their knowledge of, or personal involvement in, the alleged retaliation.

The court dismissed Harte’s Section 1981 race-discrimination claim. Although Harte alleged that the defendants acted because of racial hostility, the court found that her factual allegations did not plausibly show discriminatory intent. The court noted that the defendants’ alleged actions followed student complaints and their observations of Harte’s classroom conduct, that Harte did not allege that the defendants made similar racial statements to her, and that she did not allege disparate treatment. The court also found that Hsu’s alleged statements did not support an inference of discriminatory intent.

New York State and New York City claims

The court allowed Harte’s retaliation claims based on her negative evaluation and reduction in teaching responsibilities to proceed against Pace University under both the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The New York State retaliation claim also survived against Blackwood and Hsu. The New York City retaliation claim survived against Blackwood, Hsu, and Baumann.

The court dismissed Harte’s New York State and New York City race-discrimination claims because she did not allege facts supporting an inference that the defendants’ actions were motivated by race or that she was treated differently from people who engaged in similar conduct.

The court found that Harte adequately alleged Blackwood’s participation and workplace authority for purposes of the New York State claims. It dismissed the New York State claim against Baumann because the complaint did not adequately allege the required basis for Baumann’s individual liability. The court’s conclusion listed only Pace University, Blackwood, and Hsu as defendants remaining on the New York State retaliation claim.

Defamation

The court dismissed Harte’s defamation-per-se claim. It held that statements Hsu and Blackwood allegedly made to Harte during meetings, as well as statements Blackwood allegedly made in Harte’s evaluation, were protected by New York’s qualified privilege for workplace communications made among people sharing a common interest.

The court also considered statements Harte alleged Hsu made to students, including statements about student evaluations, the effect of students’ labor, Harte’s pay, students’ stress, and the course being a “meta” experience. The court found that some statements were true based on Harte’s own allegations, some were nonactionable opinions, and others did not clearly concern Harte or identify a specific defamatory statement.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The following claims survived: Harte’s Title VII retaliation claim against Pace University; her Section 1981 retaliation claim against Pace University, Blackwood, Hsu, and Baumann; her New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claim against Pace University, Blackwood, and Hsu; and her New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claim against Pace University, Blackwood, Hsu, and Baumann. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report by April 12, 2024.