904 F. Supp. 2d 294
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiff Lisa Edwards, an African-American female, worked for the Jericho Union Free School District system until her 2010 termination.
- She began as part-time/per diem staff in 2006 and was placed on a three-year probationary track for Reading/ELA Support at Jericho High School.
- During probation, evaluations were generally positive; Ciuffo later declined tenure without explanation.
- Plaintiff alleges a pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct culminating in a transfer to Cantiague and a hostile environment, followed by termination in 2010.
- Defendants include the District, Board, and administrators Grishman, Ciuffo, Bauer, Prisinzano, and Sinanis; plaintiff sought relief under Title VII, NYHRL, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and § 1983.
- Procedural posture: defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)); plaintiff cross-moved to amend under Rule 15 to add/expand Title VII, § 1983, and § 1981 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYHRL claims are time-barred against certain defendants. | Edwards argues 3813(2-b) applies only to officers, so claims against principals are timely. | District and Board contend all NYHRL claims are time-barred by 3813(1)/(2-b). | Time-barred for District/Board; not barred for Prisinzano/Sinanis. |
| Whether notice-of-claim requirements apply to NYHRL tort claims and affect Bauer's claims. | Notice of Claim applicable to all tort defendants; Bauer included. | Notice requirements apply under GML §50-e to named defendants. | Notice requirements apply to Bauer, leading to dismissal of tort claims against Bauer; others unaffected. |
| Whether Prisinzano and Sinanis face NYHRL liability under 296(1) or 296(6). | Prisinzano and Sinanis discriminated/participated in discriminatory conduct. | Only Prisinzano’s conduct allegedly involved; Sinanis’ conduct insufficiently described. | Prisinzano: 296(1) claims dismissed; 296(6) liability denied; Sinanis: 296(6) plausible; 296(1) dismissed. |
| Whether plaintiff may amend to add § 1983 claims and § 1981 claims. | Concurrent § 1983 claim allowed; § 1981 claim may be raised. | § 1983 against certain entities/factions may be futile; § 1981 confines. | Amendment granted as to Ciuffo, Bauer, Sinanis for § 1983; denied as to Grishman/Prisinzano; § 1981 claim granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jett v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (U.S. 1989) (§1981 damages relation to Monell; private enforcement separate from §1983)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (concurrent §1983 and Title VII; municipal liability standards)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (personal liability and supervisor liability principles in §1983)
- Patrowich v. Chem. Bank, 63 N.Y.2d 541 (NY 1984) (NYHRL employer liability requires ownership or hire/fire power)
- Gentile v. Town of Huntington, 288 F.Supp.2d 316 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (individual liability under NYHRL §296(1) unless owner/operator)
- McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930 (2d Cir. 1977) (personal liability standard for high-ranking officials)