Kpaka v. the City University of New York
708 F. App'x 703
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Linda Annette Kpaka, pro se, sued her former employer Borough of Manhattan Community College (CUNY) and individual employees alleging Title VII discrimination, Equal Pay Act violations, Sherman Act restraint of trade, and breach of employment contract.
- Central factual allegations included being passed over for a committee position in favor of a white employee, unequal pay, and termination in violation of her offer letter.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead facts plausibly showing discrimination or other cognizable claims.
- The district court found the committee-selection claim time-barred because the alleged event occurred more than 300 days before Kpaka filed an EEOC charge.
- The district court also concluded Kpaka failed to plead comparator facts for her equal pay claim, failed to allege that conditions precedent for contract performance were satisfied, and failed to allege an unreasonable restraint on trade.
- Kpaka appealed; the Second Circuit affirmed the district court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII discrimination claims were plausibly pleaded | Kpaka alleged discriminatory treatment (e.g., passed over for committee) and other adverse actions | Defendants argued complaint lacked factual allegations creating a plausible inference of discrimination | Dismissed: complaint fails to plead facts creating plausible inference of discrimination; the committee claim is time-barred and, alternatively, lacks comparator allegations |
| Timeliness of committee-selection claim (EEOC 300-day rule) | Claim arose from being passed over for a committee position | Defendants argued the event was outside the 300-day limitations period | Upheld: district court correctly held claim time-barred; Kpaka did not meaningfully contest on appeal |
| Equal Pay Act claim (pay discrimination) | Kpaka alleged she was paid less than male colleagues | Defendants argued no facts alleging comparison to similarly situated male employees | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead she was paid less than similarly situated males |
| Breach of contract based on offer letter conditions | Kpaka alleged firing violated her employment contract | Defendants argued contract performance was conditioned on enrollment, finances, curriculum need and those conditions were not alleged to be met | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege that conditions precedent were satisfied |
| Sherman Act (restraint of trade) | Kpaka alleged unlawful restraint on trade by employer | Defendants argued no factual allegations of unreasonable restraint or anticompetitive conduct | Dismissed: complaint lacks facts showing an unreasonable restraint on trade |
Key Cases Cited
- Biro v. Conde Nast, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (prima facie discrimination pleading requirements)
- Littlejohn v. City of N.Y., 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (circumstances giving rise to inference of discrimination)
- Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (issues not adequately briefed are deemed waived)
- Mandell v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2003) (similarly situated comparator requirement)
- Lavin-McEleney v. Marist College, 239 F.3d 476 (2d Cir. 2001) (equal pay comparator pleading)
- Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., 304 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2002) (no performance due if condition precedent unmet)
- Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012) (antitrust pleading standards)