Klein v. New York University
786 F. Supp. 2d 830
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Klein, a Stern School of Business professor, sues NYU alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the EPA, including a late promotion to full professor and related adverse actions.
- 1998 Memo: Klein and other women alleged gender discrimination; Stern formed the Women’s Committee and issued a 2001 report finding inequities and recommending equity in tenure and promotions.
- Annual merit reviews determine raises and research support; Klein consistently received raises and research funding but some teaching ratings and service records were criticized.
- Klein received promotion to full professor only in December 2009 (effective Sept. 1, 2010) after an earlier non-promotion in 2001 and a 2009 promotion following a second application.
- Housing, office assignments, and teaching schedules were repeatedly objected to by Klein, including requests for a three-bedroom university housing unit and an office move during a 2003–2006 transition.
- Klein filed EEOC charges in 2006 and 2007 and filed suit in 2007; NYU seeks summary judgment on most claims, with EPA remaining viable for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie discrimination established? | Klein asserts timing and context suggest discrimination. | NYU argues no timely actionable adverse action within limitations and no inference of discrimination. | Summary judgment for NYU on discrimination; prima facie not shown within period and not materially adverse. |
| Failure to promote—timeliness and causation? | Klein applied for promotion; delay or discouragement implied discrimination. | Choi advised wait for strategic reasons, no discriminatory intent. | Claim rejected; only non-time-barred application (2009) succeeded in promotion. |
| Housing denial as adverse action? | Three-bedroom housing denial constitutes adverse employment action. | Tight housing market and no gender-based denial shown. | Not a materially adverse action tied to discrimination; no causal link shown. |
| Retaliation claims viable? | Actions post-Memo/EEOC/Lawsuit evidence retaliation. | Actions were not materially adverse or lacked causal link to protected activities. | No prima facie retaliation; no causal connection demonstrated. |
| EPA claim viability against pay differentials? | Klein paid less than male comparators for substantially equal work. | Salary differences reflect merit/seniority; policy application is legitimate. | EPA claim survives; issues of reasonableness of pay disparity require further fact-finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belfi v. Prendergast, 191 F.3d 129 (2d Cir.1999) (establishes framework for pretext and discrimination analysis under EPA)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standard—material adversity limited to injury or harm)
- Galabya v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 202 F.3d 636 (2d Cir.2000) (adverse action standard in discrimination context requires material change)
- Hill v. Citibank Corp., 312 F.Supp.2d 464 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (statute-of-limitations/claims timing in Title VII actions)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)