Philpott v. New York
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67591
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Jeffery Philpott, former VP of Student Affairs at SUNY College of Optometry, sued alleging discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation based on sexual orientation and (originally) chemical dependence; ADA chemical-dependence claim later withdrawn.
- Plaintiff conceded that the State of New York and the University of the State of New York are not proper defendants; only SUNY remains.
- Complaint alleges repeated derogatory comments and exclusion by SUNY President Dr. David Heath and coworker Gui Albieri (2011–2015), a formal complaint in Sept. 2015, a denied then later-approved leave request, and termination effective Nov. 20, 2015 shortly after the complaint.
- Defendants moved to dismiss raising: (1) Title VII does not cover sexual-orientation discrimination; (2) failure to state a plausible claim; (3) statute-of-limitations bar for pre-2015 acts; and (4) Title IX inapplicable to employee claims.
- Court declined to dismiss Title VII sexual-orientation allegations given evolving law recognizing sexual-orientation discrimination as sex stereotyping, found plaintiff’s discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims plausibly pleaded, rejected statute-of-limitations dismissal for time-barred acts used as background or as part of a continuing hostile environment, and dismissed the Title IX employment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sexual-orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII | Philpott argues his sexual-orientation claim should proceed and can be viewed as sex-stereotyping discrimination | SUNY relies on Second Circuit precedent precluding sexual-orientation claims under Title VII (Simonton, Dawson, Christiansen majority) | Court held sexual-orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII given evolving authority and the logical overlap with gender-stereotyping claims; refusal to draw artificial distinction |
| Whether complaint plausibly pleads discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation | Allegations of repeated derogatory comments, exclusion from meetings/projects, a formal complaint, and termination shortly after complaint support claims | SUNY contends allegations are insufficient to state plausible claims | Court held allegations are sufficient to plausibly state discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims |
| Timeliness of allegations (statute of limitations) | Philpott argues earlier acts can be used as background and part of a continuing hostile environment | SUNY argues acts before April 30, 2015 are untimely because EEOC charge filed Feb 24, 2016 | Court held discrete pre-limit acts are not recoverable but may be used as background; hostile-environment claim timely if at least one act occurred within limitations period |
| Whether Title IX provides an independent remedy for employee discrimination | Philpott included a Title IX claim in addition to Title VII | SUNY argues Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination at federally funded schools and Title IX shouldn’t bypass Title VII administrative scheme | Court dismissed Title IX claim for employment discrimination, holding Title VII is the exclusive remedy for employees |
Key Cases Cited
- Simonton v. Runyon, 232 F.3d 33 (2d Cir.) (precluding sexual-orientation claims under Title VII)
- Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211 (2d Cir.) (reaffirming Simonton)
- Christiansen v. Omnicom Grp., Inc., 852 F.3d 195 (2d Cir.) (reaffirming prior precedent but concurring opinion urged reconsideration and framed sexual orientation as sex discrimination)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S.) (gender-stereotyping theory of sex discrimination)
- Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. of Indiana, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (held sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination under Title VII)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S.) (prior acts outside limitations may be used as background; hostile-work-environment claim may include acts within limitations)
- Littlejohn v. City of N.Y., 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir.) (pleading standards for discrimination and retaliation)
- Patterson v. Cty. of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir.) (hostile-work-environment timeliness principles)
- Burrell v. City Univ. of N.Y., 995 F. Supp. 398 (S.D.N.Y.) (Title VII is the exclusive remedy for employee claims in educational settings)