Mira v. Kingston, 218 F. Supp. 3d 229

Plaintiff Leslie Moore Mira, pro se, sued former employer Platts/McGraw Hill Financial (a division of S&P Global) and four supervisors alleging retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment, a racially/national-origin hostile work environment, and constructive discharge.
Plaintiff resigned on or about January 3, 2013, which she alleges was a constructive discharge due to harassment at work and continued post-employment harassment.
Plaintiff filed an administrative charge with the NYSDHR/EEOC on February 3, 2015 (over 700 days after her last day of work); the EEOC dismissed the charge as untimely on September 22, 2015, and she filed this suit on December 22, 2015.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as time-barred; one individual defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 4(m) for lack of service.
The district court held Title VII claims against individual supervisors are not cognizable, found Plaintiff’s Title VII claim against the employer untimely (outside the 300-day filing period), rejected equitable tolling, dismissed federal claims with prejudice, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state/city claims (dismissed without prejudice).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title VII claim is timely	Mira contends discriminatory/retaliatory acts continued post-employment and that administrative filing was timely or tolled	Platts argues administrative charge was filed well beyond the 300-day limitations period and not tolled	Dismissed: Plaintiff filed long after 300-day period; equitable tolling not available
Whether post-employment incidents constitute actionable Title VII retaliation	Mira argues post-employment harassment and interference with subsequent employment are retaliatory acts	Defendants argue alleged post-employment incidents are unconnected, non-employment harms, and Plaintiff secured immediate new employment	Dismissed: alleged incidents do not show protected, employer-caused post-employment retaliation
Whether Title VII permits suits against individual supervisors	Mira named individual supervisors as defendants	Defendants contend Title VII liability is against the employer only	Dismissed with prejudice as to individuals: Title VII claims cannot be brought against supervisors
Whether federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state/city claims after dismissal of federal claims	Mira seeks to maintain related state and city claims in federal court	Defendants argue federal claims fail so no basis for jurisdiction	Dismissed without prejudice: court declines supplemental jurisdiction; state/city claims remanded to state court arena

Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir.) (standard for construing factual allegations on motion to dismiss)
Allen v. WestPoint-Pepperell, Inc., 945 F.2d 40 (2d Cir.) (limits on materials considered on Rule 12(b)(6))
Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir.) (judicial notice of public documents)
Gill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192 (2d Cir.) (pro se litigant materials considered on motion to dismiss)
Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (Title VII claims properly brought only against employers)
Butts v. City of New York Dep’t of Hous., Pres. & Dev., 990 F.2d 1397 (2d Cir.) (300‑day limitations period for state‑agency charges)
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S.) (Title VII protects certain post‑employment retaliation)
Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co., 108 F.3d 462 (2d Cir.) (examples of actionable post‑employment retaliation)
In re U.S. Lines, 318 F.3d 432 (2d Cir.) (equitable tolling doctrine explained)
Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (fraudulent concealment or inducement as bases for equitable tolling)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S.) (equitable tolling is an affirmative defense)