Kalia v. City University of New York

S.D. New York

Kalia v. City University of New York

DecidedJuly 7, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-06242

StatusUnknown

This text of Kalia v. City University of New York (Kalia v. City University of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kalia v. City University of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : RAVI KALIA, : : Plaintiff, : 19-CV-6242 (JMF) : -v- : ORDER : CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII claims as untimely. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court believes that the parties’ dispute may turn in part on when President Boudreau communicated to Plaintiff that he had been denied a distinguished professorship. See, e.g., Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258 (1980) (holding, with respect to a professor’s claim that he was denied tenure on a discriminatory basis, that “the only alleged discrimination occurred — and the filing limitations periods therefore commenced — at the time the tenure decision was made and communicated to [the professor]”). Although the Amended Complaint appears to be silent on that issue, but see Am. Compl. ¶ 135 (alleging that, in October 2017, President Boudreau asserted to a third party that he was “unable to act on” Plaintiff’s case for a distinguished professorship), Defendants’ submission to the EEOC contains an email from President Boudreau to Plaintiff, dated August 3, 2017, stating that Plaintiff’s application “did not progress” beyond the ad hoc committee and that he (President Boudreau) would not take any further action on the case. See ECF No. 34-3, at 15. In light of the foregoing, no later than July 17, 2020, the parties shall submit supplemental briefs, not to exceed ten pages each, addressing the following: (1) Whether and to what extent the Court may consider the August 3, 2017 email in deciding Defendants’ motion to dismiss; and (2) Assuming that the Court may not consider the email (or, at least, consider the email for its truth) in deciding the motion to dismiss, whether the Court should treat the portion of Defendants’ motion to which the email relates as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Given that the Court may decide to treat the relevant portion of Defendants’ motion as a motion for summary judgment, the parties shall, by the same date, file any materials that they believe are “pertinent to the motion,” id., including but not limited to any additional evidence, affidavits, or declarations, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (d). The parties need not submit the statements of material facts pursuant to S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 56.1.

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 7, 2020 New York, New York SSE M7FURMAN nited States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : RAVI KALIA, : : Plaintiff, : 19-CV-6242 (JMF) : -v- : ORDER : CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII claims as untimely. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court believes that the parties’ dispute may turn in part on when President Boudreau communicated to Plaintiff that he had been denied a distinguished professorship. See, e.g., Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258 (1980) (holding, with respect to a professor’s claim that he was denied tenure on a discriminatory basis, that “the only alleged discrimination occurred — and the filing limitations periods therefore commenced — at the time the tenure decision was made and communicated to [the professor]”). Although the Amended Complaint appears to be silent on that issue, but see Am. Compl. ¶ 135 (alleging that, in October 2017, President Boudreau asserted to a third party that he was “unable to act on” Plaintiff’s case for a distinguished professorship), Defendants’ submission to the EEOC contains an email from President Boudreau to Plaintiff, dated August 3, 2017, stating that Plaintiff’s application “did not progress” beyond the ad hoc committee and that he (President Boudreau) would not take any further action on the case. See ECF No. 34-3, at 15. In light of the foregoing, no later than July 17, 2020, the parties shall submit supplemental briefs, not to exceed ten pages each, addressing the following: (1) Whether and to what extent the Court may consider the August 3, 2017 email in deciding Defendants’ motion to dismiss; and (2) Assuming that the Court may not consider the email (or, at least, consider the email for its truth) in deciding the motion to dismiss, whether the Court should treat the portion of Defendants’ motion to which the email relates as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Given that the Court may decide to treat the relevant portion of Defendants’ motion as a motion for summary judgment, the parties shall, by the same date, file any materials that they believe are “pertinent to the motion,” id., including but not limited to any additional evidence, affidavits, or declarations, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (d). The parties need not submit the statements of material facts pursuant to S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 56.1.

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 7, 2020 New York, New York SSE M7FURMAN nited States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kalia v. City University of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalia-v-city-university-of-new-york-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack