104 F. Supp. 3d 232
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Oleg Soloviev was Aquatics Director and men’s swim head coach at CSI from 1995 until his termination on November 17, 2011; plaintiffs are Oleg and Olga Soloviev.
- Plaintiffs sued CUNY, CSI (improperly named), several individual CUNY officials, and the NCAA asserting federal and state employment discrimination, Section 1983 (stigma-plus), ERISA, FLSA, wage claims, state-law tort and contract claims, and others.
- Alleged conduct: long‑running discrimination (national origin/race/age/gender), unequal pay, equipment and working‑condition complaints, increased pool rental fees to Blue Arrows (the Solovievs’ swim club) in June 2011, refusal to renew pool rental in 2013, and an NCAA/CUNY investigation culminating in termination for recruiting/NCAA violations.
- Procedural history: amended complaint filed Aug. 25, 2014; CUNY moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment, timeliness, collateral estoppel, and failure‑to‑state grounds; NCAA moved to dismiss Section 1983 and state tort claims.
- District court dismissed the amended complaint in full: CUNY’s motion GRANTED IN PART/MOOT IN PART; NCAA’s motion GRANTED in its entirety; caption to be amended to remove CSI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity (state entity and official‑capacity claims) | Soloviev asserts federal and state statutory and common‑law claims against CUNY and individual officials in official capacity. | CUNY is an arm of the state; Eleventh Amendment bars many federal and all state‑law claims against the state and state officials in official capacity (except limited Ex parte Young prospective relief). | Claims against CUNY for ADA (Title I), ADEA, ERISA, FLSA, §1983, NYSHRL/NYCHRL, Civil Service §75(b), and state common law dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction. Official‑capacity claims against individual defendants also barred where Ex parte Young does not apply. |
| Timeliness of discrimination claims (Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL) | Plaintiffs contend various discriminatory acts over many years are actionable. | Many alleged discrete acts predate EEOC filing; Title VII 300‑day rule and 3‑year NYSHRL/NYCHRL limitations bar older acts. | Only claims within statutory windows survive: June 2011 fee increase (state/local law only), November 17, 2011 termination, and 2013 refusal to rent; other discrete acts are time‑barred. |
| Failure to state discrimination/retaliation claims (Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL) | Plaintiffs claim termination and other actions were motivated by national origin/race/gender and retaliation for Blue Arrows' lawsuit. | Defendants argue plaintiffs do not plead qualification, causal link to protected trait or protected activity, or adequate facts showing employer decisionmakers harbored discriminatory/retaliatory motive. | Court dismissed discrimination and retaliation claims: (1) Title VII/NYSHRL claims fail because plaintiff was not plausibly qualified given NCAA violations and no non‑speculative link to protected traits; (2) NYCHRL claims also fail for lack of facts showing discriminatory motive; (3) retaliation fails because the Blue Arrows’ 2011 petition did not invoke discrimination and defendants lacked notice. |
| Claims vs. NCAA: §1983 and tortious interference | Plaintiffs assert stigma‑plus §1983 and state tortious interference against NCAA for its role in investigation and sanctions. | NCAA argued it is not a state actor and that §1983 claim fails; tort claim is preempted by LMRA §301. | Court dismissed §1983 claim (plaintiffs had an adequate state post‑deprivation remedy and did not pursue Article 78) and dismissed tortious interference as LMRA‑preempted/untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clissuras v. City Univ. of N.Y., 359 F.3d 79 (2d Cir.) (CUNY and its colleges are arms of the state and immune under the Eleventh Amendment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (federal pleading standard: plausible factual allegations required)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (exception to Eleventh Amendment permitting prospective relief against state officials)
- Segal v. City of N.Y., 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir.) (stigma‑plus §1983 framework and availability of adequate post‑deprivation remedy defeats claim)
- Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.) (elements for discrimination inference and prima facie showing)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (but‑for causation standard for Title VII retaliation)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (limits on Congress’s ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity)