Flum v. Department of Education, 83 F. Supp. 3d 494

Barbara Flum, a long‑time NYC public school teacher with disabilities (brain tumor, fibromyalgia), worked at P.S. 123, then briefly at Waterside and Village (2010–11), returned to P.S. 123 (2011–12), and was assigned to P.S. 215 (2012–13) before medical leave.
Flum had DOE workplace accommodations (e.g., first‑floor or elevator classroom, no escort or stair duties, assignment to barrier‑free building).
She originally sued in February 2012 alleging ADA, Rehabilitation Act, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims based on conduct at P.S. 123; amended complaint (Mar. 17, 2014) added allegations about Waterside and P.S. 215 and named Principal Susan Hoffmann.
Defendants moved to dismiss portions of the amended complaint as time‑barred under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the Waterside and P.S. 215 claims (and related state/local claims and claims against Hoffmann) were untimely and did not relate back to the original complaint.
The court applied relation‑back principles (Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)) and the applicable statutes of limitations (three years for Rehabilitation Act; one year for NYSHRL/NYCHRL against DOE/school officers; ADA charging requirements) to determine timeliness.
The court held that the Waterside claims and the NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims as to P.S. 215, and all claims against Hoffmann, are time‑barred and dismissed them; other claims (e.g., ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims re: P.S. 215) were not contested as untimely by defendants and thus were not dismissed on that basis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Waterside claims are timely or relate back	Flum argued Waterside allegations relate back to original complaint and are covered by prior EEOC charge(s)	DOE argued Waterside claims arose from distinct facts/actors and were filed after limitations periods and do not relate back	Court: Waterside claims do not relate back and are time‑barred (all Waterside claims dismissed)
Whether ADA Waterside claim is covered by EEOC charge/right‑to‑sue	Flum contended first EEOC charge covers related claims	DOE argued Waterside arose after that charge and is not reasonably related; later charge filed too late	Court: ADA Waterside claim untimely and not within scope of prior charge; would not relate back; dismissed
Whether P.S. 215 NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims relate back to original complaint	Flum argued amended allegations relating to P.S. 215 relate back	DOE argued P.S. 215 claims are distinct, arose after original complaint, and could not have provided notice	Court: P.S. 215 NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims do not relate back and are time‑barred; dismissed
Whether Hoffmann (P.S. 215 principal) may be liable	Flum added Hoffmann as individual defendant tied to P.S. 215 allegations	DOE argued claims against Hoffmann are untimely and ADA/Rehab Act impose no individual liability	Court: All claims against Hoffmann dismissed as time‑barred and because ADA/Rehab Act have no individual liability (where applicable)

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (court may consider certain documents outside complaint on motion to dismiss)
ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, 493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (credit allegations and inference drawing on motion to dismiss)
Slayton v. Am. Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (relation‑back requires adequate notice from original pleading)
ASARCO LLC v. Goodwin, 756 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (claims based on distinct conduct/actors do not relate back)
Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1999) (statute of limitations for Rehabilitation Act claims)
Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 458 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2006) (claims in federal court must be reasonably related to EEOC charge)
Butts v. City of New York Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 990 F.2d 1397 (2d Cir. 1993) (scope of EEOC investigation and reasonable relation doctrine)
Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (circumstances where claims not in EEOC charge are reasonably related)
Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2010) (no individual liability under ADA/Rehabilitation Act)